Full agreement with Barry on his point. Two ways to make a ULO
understandable are to try to educate users of it [hey, ontology
crowd... who exactly are our "users" anyway?] or by hiding its
action behind good tools, wizards, etc. Another approach, which I
believe Adam Pease advocates and is a good idea, is to build a thin
"middle layer" under the ULO and encourage the use of that. Such a
middle layer contains terms closer to everyday experience. This
approach warrants merit but is a big task as the job of determining
adequacy/coverage for a mid-level is arguably more difficult than
doing it for an ULO. (01)
On Feb 27, 2006, at 15:37 , Smith, Barry wrote: (02)
>>
>> [Bill:] Precisely. There has come to be an elan associated with
>> the use of logic because of the relative smaller priesthood that
>> understands it vs more traditional approaches. But its just a
>> tool and lots of bad things get built with good tools. This, BTW,
>> is a MAJOR engineering reason to adopt a ULO approach -- by
>> constraining the "imaginations" of domain ontologists, fewer
>> mistakes get made. This has been our experience in every project
>> we've done.
> This is an important point -- but we will succeed in constraining
> imaginations only to the degree that the adopters understand it.
> Hence the ULO should be (or have a representation which is)
> maximally intuitively acceptable/understandable.
> Barry (03)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (05)
|