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
C-E LCMC CIO/G6
732-532-5812 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (08)
|