+1
Ron (01)
On 11/04/2010 12:00 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Use cases for the OOR and SIO would and should overlap because they
> will naturally be used together. One could, of course, use them
> separately, but ideally the OOR will contain a basic set of modules
> (theories) that almost everybody would want to use to build an
> ontology of any size. Furthermore, the SIO project will develop
> the tools that make the OOR more than just a library.
>
> RW> If the OOR is only to support ontology developers, then it is
> > at best an academic exercise and the real ontology work will
> > move elsewhere. It has to help application developers find
> > the ontologies that they need and to understand which ones
> > can be used together.
>
> Among the use cases for both the OOR and SIO are support for
> the ontologies necessary for software design and development.
> That implies a very large overlap with what the OMG is doing.
> See below for a copy of a note I sent to an OMG email list.
>
> CR>> The OOR is federated. So there is no central repository.
>
> RW> I hope that the SIO will produce a structure similar to Maven
> > so that local and central and federated repositories can be built
> > the way Nexus is used to manage and distribute software artifacts.
>
> If the OOR has a good set of basic ontologies, it will become
> the first choice for anybody who wants to start or extend any
> kind of ontology development.
>
> If the SIO tools are sufficiently flexible and usable, they
> will be adopted by anybody who wants to start or extend any
> kind of ontology development.
>
> I cited Eclipse as an example, because developers for small
> businesses, large corporations, and open-source projects
> all use it and contribute to it.
>
> I hope that we can attract the same people who use Eclipse,
> but we must also support the Semantic Web, SOA projects,
> and document processing of any kind.
>
> John
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Business and logical view of processes
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:53:52 -0400
> From: John F. Sowa
> To: architecture-ecosystem<architecture-ecosystem@xxxxxxx>
>
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to point out that if this project is successful, the total
> amount of content will become truly immense. It will never become
> as large as the full WWW, but every well thought-out viewpoint (a
> tiny, but still enormous subset of the WWW) will be represented.
>
> As with the WWW, the basic information may be contributed by
> humans, but the organization and structure of that information
> requires automated tools. If you have suitable tools, you don't
> need a hub-and-spoke organization to manage the information.
>
> Some comments:
>
> JA> The integration is implemented in the 'hub out' since that's
> > where the shared information is linked.
>
> If you look at the WWW, the automated tool for sharing, organizing,
> and finding information is an "afterthought" named Google. We need
> something more structured than Google's indexing service, but it
> must be as flexible, automatic, and easy to use as Google.
>
> VLH> Why not make the solution space inclusive of composition and
> > extension as well? This is where the real issue is anyway:
> > (e.g. "How do I use this kind of model to help my part of
> > the solution?? I know! I will just ignore it!")
>
> That shows why the system must be as automated and easy to use
> as Google. People don't ignore Google, because Google indexes
> everything, and it's easier to use it than to ignore it. It
> conforms to the fundamental principle of Human Factors:
>
> If you want people to be virtuous, you have to make virtue
> the path of least resistance.
>
> For example, I have advocated a lattice structure, which supports
> multiple inheritance. But people often complain,
>
> "Oh, no! You can't have multiple inheritance because it creates
> inconsistencies when people specify multiple inheritance links."
>
> I agree. I would never ask anyone to specify more than one
> inheritance link. In fact, I would never ask them to specify
> *any* inheritance links.
>
> The reason why we need a lattice is that the software *automatically*
> determines the inheritance links. For example, check Google for FCA
> (Formal Concept Analysis). Given a set of concepts described by a
> collection of attributes, the FCA tools automatically determine the
> minimal lattice that specifies all the inheritance links among those
> concepts.
>
> People even use the FCA tools to verify that OWL ontologies are
> consistent. For more info, use Google to search for "FCA OWL"
> (but throw in the word 'concept' to reduce the ambiguity).
>
> There is much more to be said about this topic, including many more
> qualifications, caveats, and suggestions. But a system of the kind
> we have been discussing *requires* automated and semi-automated
> tools for organizing, relating, and maintaining the structure.
>
> If you have suitable tools, the requirements for human management
> and administration are drastically reduced. Before Google, there
> were many attempts to develop human-contributed classifications
> to support Yahoo and other systems. But the automated methods
> of Google made all those human-based indexes obsolete.
>
> For this project, we need more structure than just an index,
> but the tools that derive the structure must be automated.
> There are also semi-automated methods such as folksonomies,
> which have some useful properties, but more structure is
> needed than the typical folksonomies support.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
> Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
> Community Wiki:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies
>
>
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (03)
|