|
Adrian -- I would argue, from a different perspective, that at least the business rules, and possibly what the applications do with the CUO terms, should be representable directly in the ontology. Semantics encompasses not only the concept, but the semantics of how it is represented, and the semantics of how it relates to other things (including what uses it.). For example, I should be able in the ontology to represent not only the concept of a temperature, but also the concept of degrees fahrenheit (and how it relates to degrees Celsius), and the concept that this is a temperature measurement reported for the weather at a particular location at a particular point in time (and thus may not be related to, say, an engine temperature for a car). If this information is representable using ontological terms, it already is transparent and auditable. This, by the way, does not mean that I personally object to simplified English rules. I have seen a couple of simplified English systems, and they are useful, and the users tend to be able to relate to them better. I think the simplified English should be tied to an ontology, though. -- Marian Nodine Adrian Walker wrote: Hi All --
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/ Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/ To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (01) |
