[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] Denise's point challenging/test the basic assumption that

To: <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:54:53 -0400
Message-id: <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C9056239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
which current ontology model were you referring to in your message?  At the meeting I suggested that we might look at the FEA/DRM draft ontology to see what we thought of it.  I didn't assume it would be an adequate base, but many of us do work that has models that have to map to the FEA view of business, so this might be an area that several of us could work on related to our current work and we could leverage this combined effort to a much better ontology.
In general, I believe that modeling efforts need to have a focus or else we may wind up modeling the ocean boiling....
Gary Berg-Cross
Potomac, MD

I was not able to participate in your session on Wednesday because I was giving
an all day workshop on search systems.  I must say, though, that I'm a bit
concerned that the group seems to be starting a discussion at what I would call
level 0 rather than to be sharing practical experience from organizations which
might be at level 2 or 3.  I would like to suggest that this group:   

(1) challenge/test the basic assumption that the current ontology model is
sufficiently well developed and tested to use as a baseline for any real
practical development -- I think there are several flaws in the model;
(2) test that ontology model for scalability and extensibility (I don't think it
will pass this test);
(3) clearly state what the end game of an ontology is (there are of course
multiple end games, but we need to begin to at least define what some of them
are - otherwise they are motherhood, apple pie and everything in between);
(4) distinguish between tools and techniques that can be used to build an
ontology, and begin to identify where these tools and techniques are best used
in the development of a robust ontology model;
and (5) review what work has already been done that is not labelled 'ontology'
per se but actually does move towards the end game.   

For several years now we have been talking at the word level -- way too much
progress has been made beyond this level for us to still be "struggling" with
these issues.  We cannot afford to still be talking at this level.   And,
frankly, the structures for dealing with these issues are already available to
us and in some cases are in place.   

Please forgive my frankness but there's a lot of practical experience around in
solving these kinds of problems -- we need to leverage that experience, not try
to reinvent it.   

Best regards,

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontac-forum] Denise's point challenging/test the basic assumption that the current ontology model is sufficiently well developed and tested to use as a baseline, Gary Berg-Cross <=