Re: [ontology-summit] [Reusable Content] Characterizing or measuring reu

[Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gary and Ed, There are two bullets in the reuse discussion where I (somewhat) disagree ... 

   - the content is consistent with the micro-theory adopted by the re-user

   - the re-user is able to determine that the content is consistent with his/her theory

      Yes, I guess that we might look for structural consistency which was perhaps handled in the conversion 

      process mentioned previously, the logical consistency (check with a reasoner?) and consistency with the 

      user's conceptualization. 

I don't think that the content must be consistent, but the content must be mappable or translatable.

This takes us back to Hans' point about understanding the assumptions and context of the original content ... Just as more discussion showed that the events in Pascal's talk and in FIBO were semantically close (if not equivalent), it is important to somehow enable a similar line of reasoning.  We need to understand how and why some model was created/defined as it was, and then other alternatives/possibilities that the model enables.

The problem here (as Cory noted) is time and money to create the information or have the dialog.  Is this something that could be crowd-sourced?

--

Andrea Westerinen

T: 425.891.8407

arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx or andreaw@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AndreaWesterinen

organizingknowledge.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)