On Thu, January 23, 2014 12:03, John McClure wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:47 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
<snip/>
"Reuse" was the promise; empirically it has not been delivered - why
not?
Because it was expressed in RDF.
Let's not confuse format with content.
You snipped my discussion of some of the problems with RDF format.
I certainly have not confused the two.
+ Class taxonomies + Property taxonomies
... + rules
If you hate CycL, pick another format. -- doug
Format is not the issue. It is how we name things.
This was in response to "don't suggest using CycL."
Format is certainly an issue. If not, why aren't we using base 1 Turing
Machines?
A standardized system of nomenclature can be very important for a
community of practice. However, the standard selected merely needs to be
consistent. A standard might require the predicate name in the form
"isFatherOf", "FatherOf", "fathered", "is_father_to", "father-has-son", or
something else, so long as all predicates are named the same way. One
system may prefer noun phrases, another verb phrases, another sentences --
all are OK as long as they are consistent. When adopting an ontology and
adding onto it, be consistent with its naming system.
Just because one user prefers one nomenclature system, that does not mean
that any other system that conflict with her/his preferred system are
"wrong" or "faulty" -- just that they are inconsistent systems and a
system that reuses ontological terms named using different systems of
nomenclature may be more difficult to understand.
-- doug foxvog
_________________________________________________________________
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/