Dear Colleagues, (01)
During the last session Track C session on Bottlenecks in Ontology
Engineering, we were asked some questions. I repeat these below to solicit
your answers to these questions, and I provide some of my own where I have
some. (02)
Here are the questions: (03)
1. What are the lessons learned from in-the-wild ontology engineering
projects? (04)
2. How do challenges related to cultural and motivational issues
relate to technical issues, e.g., tool support? (05)
3. How to get community buy-in? (06)
4. What are the tradeoffs between expressiveness vs. pragmatics? (07)
5. Who will develop all the ontologies we would ideally need? (08)
6. What is the role of crowd-sourcing? (09)
7. What is the state-of-the art with respect to quality control? (010)
8. How is the industry addressing ontology engineering bottlenecks and
what are the technological solutions available on the market today? (011)
9. How much (deep) semantics do customers really need? (012)
I'm going to pick a couple of these: (013)
What are the tradeoffs between expressiveness vs. pragmatics? (014)
Two kinds of ontology I find have different requirements. (015)
The first sort I would call a descriptive ontology, where the purpose is to
as accurate as possible to how some domain is, not so much for reasoning,
but for documentation. In this situation expressiveness is everything. If
you cannot say something that is true, then that is a severe limitation. (016)
The second sort is aimed at solving a specific problem. This is likely a
subset of some descriptive ontology (if such exists) where some specific
constraints apply, which may enable more efficient reasoning to take place,
or indeed make reasoning possible/practical. (017)
There is only a problem, in my view, if we try to insist that there is only
one type of ontology for a domain, rather than potentially more than one,
with relationships between them. (018)
Who will develop all the ontologies we would ideally need? (019)
For any domain, there ought to be an identifiable authoritative source. I
would hope that those authoritative sources would eventually understand
their responsibility to develop these ontologies. In many cases these
authoritative sources will be public administration bodies, or
standardisation bodies. This would at least be better than several bodies
developing, say, Unit of Measure ontologies, as is the case at present. (020)
What is the state-of-the art with respect to quality control? (021)
There are some things that tools can help with, like logical consistency,
but overall fitness for purpose is a human endeavour, and likely will be for
some time. I hope with increasing computer assistance. (022)
How much (deep) semantics do customers really need? (023)
Not much. The priority is identity (same name (ID) for the same thing across
those that need to share information). (024)
Regards (025)
Matthew West (026)
Wandering Glider (027)
<http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/wandering-glider>
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/wandering-glider (028)
Hon Sec MOCRA (029)
<http://www.mocra-sailing.co.uk/> http://www.mocra-sailing.co.uk/ (030)
+44 750 338 5279 (031)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (032)
|