Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Architectural considerations

[Chris Partridge <partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

 

I was trying to make a different point.

This is that if I have a footprint in which I have control of the data structures, then should I have a policy for those data structures. This is a very common situation in large enterprises today. And if I have a policy should I be able to explain why I chose the policy?

For example,  if I am developing an ontology for a large footprint and I have chosen not to have a top ontology (or to have one) should I be able to articulate why?

And should I make that decision on whether to have a top ontology at the early stages of the project, or at the very last minute, after most of the ontology is built?

And if I am considering refactoring the data structures; should I consider adding a top ontology as equally radical as adding a new term?

 

Of course, there is the issue you raise, which is how do I communicate with other enterprise over which I have no control - an important and different question.

 

I'm not sure the requirement to be able to communicate to other enterprises, means that I cannot regiment the footprint over which I have control.

 

These are just different questions, different requirements.

 

Chris

 

On 13 February 2013 15:56, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Matthew and Chris P,

In principle, all those distinctions are important.

But there is a serious question of whether they belong at the *top*
level or the *bottom* levels of an ontology.

MW
> Presentism takes the view that only things that exist now exist, and that
> things in the past and the future do not exist. Eternalism take the view
> that all points in time exist, and we can talk about historical objects as
> existing, and future objects.

That distinction can be critical for some applications and irrelevant
for others.  Many people (and computer applications) can get along very
well without ever thinking about or using those distinctions.

MW
> Absolute versus relative space, time and spacetime...
> Modally extended versus unextended individuals...
> Materialism and non-materialism...
> Extensionalism versus non-extensionalism...
> Topology of time - branching or linear...

Those are important philosophical issues that can be critical for
some applications and irrelevant for others.  Applications that
make different choices should be able to communicate with and
interoperate with other applications that ignore those distinctions.

In particular, legacy systems that have no explicit ontology aren't
going away.  Any ontology-based system that can't interoperate with
legacy systems will be relegated to a special-purpose niche.

I keep mentioning Amazon.com as a company that must interoperate with
every supplier and customer in the world.  Therefore, they require
an ontology that ignores all distinctions about products except those
that are relevant to buying, selling, shipping, and billing.

Summary: The distinctions an ontology requires are determined by its
purpose.  Making distinctions that are irrelevant to the purpose can
decrease its generality and interoperability.  Therefore, the quality
of an ontology should be measured by its *relevant* distinctions.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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)