The Basic point that John makes about reuse is one that I agree with and is important to this discussion of
reusing semantic content in Big Data, Semantic Web and LOD applications:
Different kinds of applications have different requirements for ontology. There is no such thing as a common
definition of reusability or interoperability that can cover
all the versions.
One useful task for this track discussion is to provide illuminating examples of these different requirements.
There is
perhaps some degree of generality that might be found within particular types of applications.
John>
For ontologies, an underspecified ontology such as Schema.org can
ontologies are easy to move -- provided that they don't use anything
beyond Aristotle -- eg, the GoodRelations ontology, which was moved
to Schema.org.
Here I wonder if we would be selling our experience and understanding short.
Haven't we made progress on understanding several areas of semantic relations that
can be reused. Distinctions among different types of Part relations come to mind and
In addition I would suggest that we can leverage some existing conceptual structures (apologies for
reusing your phrase lightly of discussion purposes) such as found in domains to connect concepts.
The link of diagnosis-illness-genes mentioned by Michel is perhaps one obvious idea to leverage.
The junk yard metaphor of piece reuse is not one that had occurred to me and
I'm not sure how far we would take this in terms of granular parts and what I have expressed above
suggests rummaging around for useful grains in perhaps a semi-organized antique store.
I'm sure that others will have comments on these topics as well as other parts of John's comments and
this would be useful for the Track and Summit as a whole. So have at it.
