Hi Hans -
If you're saying ontologies should be specifying attributes like
dc:subject, referencing some controlled SKOS vocabulary(s) of
functional domains, and or other provenance information such as
dc:coverage, then I'm all for that as a specific item in the
communique.
At the same time, I'd love to see folks here at Ontolog develop a
small vocabulary of TYPES of ontologies, such as that Sowa
suggested, that can be referenced by ontologies inventoried, for
instance, in the Ontolog Repository that one of the tracks has
responsibility for.
Much agree that any given ontology that hasn't incorporated any
rdf:type pointing to an "O3 type" should not be penalized in search
results -- I definitely hope the repository permits one to
independently annotate any resource (ontology) with any property,
including <rdf:type="an O3 type"/>!
The key though is to tap into SMEs' knowledge right here -- the
Subject Matter Experts where the 'subject' is "ontologies". Surely
there should be willingness to develop an O3 among these experts!!!!
/jmc
On 2/5/2014 3:31 PM, Hans Polzer wrote:
Andrea, John:
One concern I have with this
line of thinking is that it appears as if it considers that
only an ontology can be used to characterize other
ontologies for retrieval and reuse purposes. I’m not an
ontology expert or a logician, and maybe one can capture all
the salient attributes regarding the scope of applicability
of any given ontology with such an ontology of/about
ontologies, but I believe it would be smart to consider
other/additional means of characterizing ontologies for
retrieval and utilization decision purposes. Such means may
well be grounded in ontologies of specific knowledge and
human institutional domains, but could be expressed in
simpler domain-specific attribute terms. I believe this
would simplify initial searches for relevant ontologies for
someone in a particular application or institutional domain.
It could also broaden the potential audience for discovering
relevant ontologies.
Another concern I have is
this notion that an integrating ontology should not be
“open-ended”. What happens if someone develops an ontology
that doesn’t fit into the integrating ontology in a way that
makes it easy to discover for its intended purpose? What’s
wrong with open-endedness for such a purpose? Do we already
know all the possible domains for which we will have
ontologies?
fHans
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrea Westerinen
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:58 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of
Ontologies
John and John,
In as much as the "integrating"
ontology is an "ontology about ontologies (and their
concepts)" ... yes, it is a meta-ontology. However, I
find that people handle the term, "integrating ontology",
much better. And, it conveys the purpose (as opposed to
being open-ended).
Given that some of my customers view
ontologies with some skepticism (they call ontology, the
"o-word"), I much prefer avoiding adding scary modifiers
onto a scary word. (That is just my experience.)
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|