Hi guys, (01)
let me clarify my position (I am trying to digest the recent threads
while preparing for today's telecon): (02)
1. I agree very much with this statement by John Sowa (my previous
comments on the utility of an UO do NOT imply I want to have just ONE
UO): (03)
> As I've been saying from day 1, there is something more important
> than a UO: a framework that can accommodate any and every
> ontology that anyone has had, will have, or wants to have, and
> can relate them to one another. (04)
2. I also agree very much with Matthew's comments: (05)
> In order to integrate a number of applications, you have to reverse
> engineer the ontology (if it is not explicitly available) in order
> to do the integration. Otherwise you have to be very lucky. (06)
> The reason for the productivity improvement is that having a good
> upper ontology as part of your toolkit means that you know what
> questions to ask in order to place the piece of work in question
> within the framework and patterns that you already have. The framework
> and patterns give you a high level of reuse of previous work. (07)
Nicola (08)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Nicola Guarino
Co-Editor in Chief, Applied Ontology (IOS Press)
Head, Laboratory for Applied Ontology (LOA), ISTC-CNR
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies
National Research Council
Via Solteri, 38
I-38100 Trento (09)
phone: +39 0461 828486
secretary: +39 0461 436641
fax: +39 0461 435344
email: guarino@xxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.loa-cnr.it (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|