[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] Why Build Yet Another Upper Ontology?

To: "'ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6" <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:40:23 -0500
Message-id: <5F6E70D8ED5D274F9D9A721485C0A46207A2D438@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All,    (01)

      Existing upper ontologies (SUMO, DOLCE, OpenCyc) aren't being used much 
today, so why attempt to build a better one.  Why not try working with existing 
ones?    (02)

      So why are they not being used?  Some possible reasons include:    (03)

1. A system needs a system-wide ontology and wouldn't gain much from a domain 
or upper ontology.  A company with many systems can probably get by with a 
domain ontology. It is only a large and diverse organization, such as the U.S 
Army (my employer) that would need an upper ontology, to enable cross-domain 
interoperability.     (04)

2. Metcalf's law states that the "value" or "power" of a network increases
in proportion to the square of the number of nodes on the network.  The value 
of an upper ontology is semantic interoperability with all others using the 
same upper ontology, so there is little benefit in being the first.     (05)

So, let me ask.  Are there any members of this forum willing to select an 
existing upper ontology and try working with it?  If so, I suggest they conduct 
an evaluation, make a selection, and see what tests and demonstrations can be 
run.  If they show promise, a case can be made for building a better upper 
ontology.     (06)

Jim Schoening
732-532-5812    (07)

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    (08)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>