> 1) Create smaller libraries with dependencies on other libraries. Do
> not put too much in one ontology.
This is the fundamental tenet of our approach to modular ontologies,
so I absolutely agree. (01)
> 2) Provide for statements of exclusion to permit the user to say "I
> want library X as part of my project but exclude the following
> dependencies from X since I have my own functions that replace the
> functions that library X needs to be functionally complete. (02)
already provided in HETS/HetCASL. (03)
> 3) Provide specification of "public/private" facets in the model.
> This places responsibility on the publisher to understand what must
> be exposed. (04)
So far unconsidered, since all of our specifications are
exposed by definition. Perhaps this feeds nicely into the general
IPR discussion too, showing the need for further kinds of
structuring on top of the logical structuring. (05)
> 4) Provide a way for the dependent specification to present a façade
> that complies with your requirements. Such a façade will be the
> subset of semantics both parties can agree on (the shared concepts).
>
> This places the responsibility on the user to ensure that the
> resulting package of artifacts is sufficiently complete to meet the
> needs and is compatible to the extent required. (06)
Sounds like one of the bridging ontologies in our general scheme
of 'shapes' of ontology alignments? (07)
John B. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|