At 05:50 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote:
>Barry,
>
>There is no way to design an ontology for one field, say
>bioinformatics, that does not involve interoperability
>with *every* other field of endeavor known to mankind. (01)
I think this is a reductio ad absurdum of John's position. (02)
>BS> Is this work designed to support *all* possible applications?
> > (Pat?) Is it designed to support the work of, say, rocket
> > scientists?
>
>Let's start with medicine. That involves everything that
>physicians of every specialty do, ranging from general
>practitioners, to surgery, to research, and all the
>specialists for every organ, body part, and disease.
>
>That leads us to biology, with emphasis on humans, but
>also with research on primates, which are cheaper than
>humans, but still expensive to maintain. Rats and mice
>are much cheaper mammals, but some of the research can be
>performed on even cheaper animals, such as fruit flies,
>the ever-popular C. Elegans, and even lowly yeast cells.
>
>The pathogens lead us to bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi,
>insects, and a wide range of worms and worm-like organisms.
>Then the methods for treating them include almost every
>branch of chemistry for the development of pharmaceuticals.
>But there are also many kinds of mechanical, electrical,
>and computerized medical appliances that involve many
>more branches of physics and engineering.
>
>A major use for the ontology is to systematize patient
>records from physicians and hospitals around the world.
>That introduces IT issues of databases, networks, and
>security concerns about sensitive information. The same
>computers and databases that hold patient records also
>process the patients' billing and scheduling, together
>with links to all the insurance plans, HMOs, Medicare,
>and their payment allowances for each procedure.
>
>As for rocket science, don't forget that NASA has to deal
>with extreme conditions for the astronauts' life support.
>The requirements for supporting the astronauts and their
>equipment impose critical constraints on the size, shape,
>structure, and maneuverability of the space vehicles.
>
> > The issue is, given your principles, whether anything
> > could possibly be left in the central hub. It seems not.
>
>I admit that we're getting close to the starting point of
>zero axioms, but the principle of distinguishing "black box"
>and "white box" components can support some separability.
>If we organize the ontology in hubs, we should consider
>clusters of hubs -- say superhubs -- for related subfields.
>
> > ONTAC-WG has, I think, no specialists in quantum mechanics,
> > rocket science, magnetic resonance imaging (etc.) in its
> > target audience. Let us therefore simply forget quantum
> > mechanics, etc., and concentrate on those domains which
> > (all of us, I take it) are specialists in...
>
>Nobody can be a specialist in every possible area, but we must
>not only consider today's specialties, but also specialties
>that may arise in the next 20 to 40 years. (03)
And the specialisms already existing in distinct galaxies, I presume.
BS (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|