Alan and Chris, (01)
I want to emphasize that I am *not* arguing against having a top-level
ontology. What I have been emphasizing is that the top-level should
*not* make too many distinctions. It should be very underspecified. (02)
AR
> a plea to be explicit about where the ontology - the definitions and
> other necessary information about the entities in the system - ends,
> and broader knowledge representation begins. (03)
That's an important distinction, but I believe that both options can
be accommodated within a single hierarchy. The upper level can be
very underspecified -- somewhat along the lines of Schema.org or
the typical OWL ontologies in which most so-called definitions
are actually represented as comments. (04)
But the definitions and axioms needed for detailed reasoning can be
pushed down into the mid-level (the Cyc microtheories, for example)
or the very low-level application-specific details. (05)
CP
> 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? (06)
It's always a good idea to make informed decisions. But it's usually
impossible to anticipate every issue that might arise in the future. (07)
CP
> 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. (08)
But even for whatever enterprise you work for, the software must be
compatible with future developments that nobody can anticipate.
Furthermore, different departments are likely to have very different
ways of thinking about the same entities. (09)
For example, just consider a product as viewed by engineering,
manufacturing, sales, inventory, accounting, shipping, legal,
and upper management. (010)
Then consider how that company would link its software to the
WWW and to any and all suppliers and customers. (011)
CP
> 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. (012)
Yes. But that footprint is likely to be very specialized. Your
upper level could have categories for Animal > Human > Employee
without specifying all their defining or optional characteristics. (013)
But the lower levels could add more and different distinctions
that may be needed at those levels. (014)
John (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (016)
|