Patrick, (01)
1. I agree and incorporated your heading 'Cross-Domain (Many-to-Many) Mapping
Does Not Scale,' but I did add brackets. (02)
2. Many voiced a lower rating for OWL. I split it as follows: (03)
OWL Language 8
OWL Tools 6 (04)
3. I agree the phrase 'Current Technology' in the title is not fully clear, but
the paper explains it. I feel the title should be short, even if not totally
clear. (05)
4. I'm not sure if I agree with your proposed paragraph heading, "Developing
Large Non-modular Domains Does Not Scale." This seems to indicate domain
models can be scaled to any size as long as they are modular. Are you refering
to Cyc, with its micro-theories? Could an enerprise as large as DoD or the
U.S. Federal Government use this approach? Perhaps they could develop an upper
enterprise ontology, but then this looks like the same thing the paper
addresses with an upper ontology. But also, no matter how large a domain gets,
it still can't interoperate with external systems. (06)
The problem this paragraph attempts to address is that some large domains are
being developed in places like DOD, but the stakeholders may not realize it
gets very hard to develop a large domain model, and it still only helps with
applications that communicate only internal to the domain. It can only scale
so far. (07)
Jim Schoening (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Cassidy, Patrick J.
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:03 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantic technologies?Conf
erenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (09)
Jim,
I regret that I will not be able to participate in the conference due to a
conflict.
My main concern is that the title of that paper may be misleading -- I think
of ontologies, upper ontologies, KIF-based ontologies as being "current
technology". Whether they have been successfully implemented is hard to find
out: Cyc and others claim to have used ontologies for integrating databases,
but the results are not public for evaluation. (010)
I would rename the paper: (011)
Data Interoperability across the Enterprise -
Why Current Off-The-Shelf Software Cannot Achieve it (012)
My other quibbles with section titles would be:
In part 1: (013)
"Developing Larger Domains Does Not Scale"
--> Developing Large Non-modular Domains Does Not Scale (014)
"C. Cross-Domain Mapping Does Not Scale"
--> "C. Cross-Domain Many-to-Many Mapping Does Not Scale" (015)
On a substantive level, I would argue with the assertion about OWL at level 9:
'9. Actual system 'flight proven' though successful mission operations." (016)
There may be applications that actually use OWL ontologies to do more than
simple search in the ontology itself, but I don't know of any.
One should only rate OWL as a 9 if you can point to applications that actually
used the OWL as an ontology rather than as a fancy database, and did something
with it more than you can do as easily (or easier?) with existing database
applications. (017)
I won't have time for further inspection before next week. I'll look for the
results of your conference. (018)
Pat (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|