To: | "John Yanosy Jr." <jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx>, Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 2 Apr 2014 23:19:17 -0400 |
Message-id: | <CALThp9=WbBuYGjXNFWeisqzStckLPDHbDuGZT_GzE9drweYTiw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
JohnY, JohnS and Jack, Since the Track A co-champions are trying to write a synthesis, I want to come back to this email thread (which I let languish in my in-box waiting for time to write a reply) ...* Why reuse? To reduce the cost of development by developing less; To obtain a higher return on investment on what is developed * (Brad Balfour) The implementation language will impact almost all the technical aspects of reuse. The capabilities of the language impact what can be expressed and how you express it. If languages are too diverse in their capabilities, then you can't switch among them. * (Sam Adams) "Reuseful" means that the component provides something ("behavior", in the case of software) "that is commonly needed". To be reusable, the component must be found, understood and trusted. (Other points are made about iterating with the domain experts, having searchable metadata/information, ... that we have already noted in the synthesis.) * (David Wade) Reuse requires education of the business and technical advantages, metrics providing evidence of increased productivity, and full participation in/relevance to the development effort.
Jack went further to say ...Seems to me that any chunk of an ontology may be or may not be Reuseable depending on whether the specification of its attributes (delimiters) is sufficient. Further, that John Sowa's multifacted diamond structure specifies those attributes. I want to look at these two statements independently, since I want to make sure that I am interpreting them correctly ... 1. 2. Consistent with the system principles of progress and safety properties - What might these properties be for ontologies (or chunks of ontologies)? Does this translate to very specific properties like completeness and consistency? Or, does it go further to describe more complex characteristics of ontologies such as whether reasoning, probabilities, functional expressions, n-ary predicates, etc. can be supported? Or, did I misunderstand the paragraph entirely? Lastly, I want to take JohnY's first sentence and translate it for ontologies ... Reuse is the ability to include one ontology (or piece thereof) in another, which requires that the concepts (including any axioms and rules), assumptions and _expression_(s) of the included ontology meet a need and match the concepts, assumptions and _expression_ of the including ontology. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:15 PM, John Yanosy Jr. <jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] OntologySummit2014 session-12: Synthesis-II: Technical Tracks & Hackathon - Thu 2014.04.03, Peter Yim |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] Reusability and Interoperability, Matthew West |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] OntologySummit2014 session-12: Synthesis-II: Technical Tracks & Hackathon - Thu 2014.04.03, Peter Yim |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] Reusability and Interoperability, Matthew West |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |