I have to say that I agree with everything I've heard thus far. My
experience has been in developing ontologies for use in natural
sciences, so my responses below will reflect that perspective. (01)
On 1/18/2014 4:33 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> - What is it that takes a lot of time and effort?
Two things: 1. actually building the domain ontology and 2. convincing
domain scientists that it is worth their efforts.
>
> - What is it that is very expensive?
Labor. There are some algorithms out there that will help with term
discovery and the like, but ontology creation is still a largely manual
process
>
> - What is it that is held up because of a lack of scarce resources?
The scarce resources are basically time and money (since time=money, its
basically just money). It is hard to get a tool that does something
really cool that would convince the community that semantics is worth it
because a significant investment is needed before we can get there.
>
> - Why is it that ontological approaches are not taken when they
> could/should be?
The necessary ontologies do not exist. That is because the community is
not convinced ontologies are worth financial investment. Domain
scientists don't understand semantics and many don't know what
ontologies are. Many see money going to ontology-building as money NOT
going to domain research. In my opinion, the problems are mostly
sociological rather than technological. (02)
--
Anne E. Thessen, Ph.D.
School of Life Sciences
Arizona State University (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (04)
|