Hey Mike, (01)
See below. (02)
On Feb 28, 2006, at 18:31 , Uschold, Michael F wrote: (03)
> To the extent that 'Indispensable' is a semantic dead-ringer for
> 'essential', this suggestion amounts to changing 'essential' to
> 'increasingly essential'.
>
> Also, indispensable and essential are pretty black and white
> concepts, Either it is or it is not.
>
> It is not clear what 'increasingly essential's means. Nearer to a
> state of being essential, crossing that b/w divide?
>
> The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with the other wording,
> by I forget who.
>
> Something like "essential for affordable and ... semantic
> interoperability"
>
> This is less controversial. (04)
I'm not certain that "less controversial" is something we ought to be
shooting for. The very position that ULO brings something
qualitatively different to building and successfully employing
ontologies is what's being assumed in this forum by its
participants. I don't know about the other "public" participants,
but we at Ontology Works have had much success applying our ULO and
Barry Smith documents similar success: (05)
Jonathan Simon, James Matthew Fielding and Barry Smith, “Using
Philosophy to Improve the Coherence and Interoperability of
Applications Ontologies: A Field Report on the Collaboration of
IFOMIS and L&C”, in Gregor Büchel, Bertin Klein and Thomas Roth-
Berghofer (eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Philosophy and
Informatics. Deutsches Forschungszentrum für künstliche Intelligenz,
Cologne: 2004, 65–72.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/FOBKSI.pdf (06)
The point here is that the ROI from using ULO for both domain
ontology construction and for integration is higher than similar
attempts undertaken without ULO. Thus, I don't think Barry's wording
is too strong at all. I would dare say that the onus is on those who
advocate some other path to show that ULO does not have these
differential ROI benefits. To do that, they would have to say how
they, without ULO, would have reproduced all the same results - and
at less cost. Such trade studies are sadly lacking. (07)
.bill _________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|