|
Megan,
> I was hoping to get some clarification on the following points:
>
> Part of the Mission Statement for Track B refers to behaviors that
> are "...controlled or influence by an ontology."
> What does it mean for an ontology to "influence" behaviour?
--->>> An example of an ontology (and it's instance data) 'influencing'
a system might be control of network routers or switches. Depending
on conditions, and actions represented, the control may execute
changes to routing tables.
> It also states that:
> "The ontology in question may be fully embedded/encapsulated within
> an entity or system,...."
> Exactly what is meant by this? Does this refer to a situation where
> the ontology, as a set of axioms, does not exist and is only
> implicitly represented (i.e. embedded) in the system? Or, does this
> refer to a situation where the ontology is built into a system and
> not easily accessible for isolated evaluation?
--->>> Our intention was/is the latter. One or more ontologies and their
instance data are part of a system. Of course we don't mean to
exclude the situation where the system is the ontology, but use
of ontologies is much larger.
> In the former case,
> do language-specific issues (e.g. FOL vs OWL) become irrelevant?
--->>> Maybe not. The problem is how these language specific issues
manifest themselves in the context of blackbox evaluation. One
possibility is the range of queries that could be made.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|