Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
 At 11:27 AM 12/20/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >> In all of this recent talk of creating ontologies, using schemas for >> constraints, and creating large-scale distributed networks of commonly >> understood information, I feel like we're seeing the usual formula of >> 'achieve agreement, implement everything according to that agreement, >> enjoy paradise'. >> > This has been the problem of structured medical terminology for the past >3 decades and today we have no universal agreement about and less structure >in medical records. And then the government steps in and says "We aren't >requiring you to do it this way but if you don't you won't get paid." That >is the best way I know of achieving consensus. My proposition is, simply >put, that while we are cleaning up the medical claims procedures, we seize >the opportunity to fix the information system. I'm aware that this is what _is_ happening, but are you really convinced that it's a good idea to enforce 'universal agreement' throughout the process? I'm not sure ontology by fiat is blessed with any particular exemption that makes it a better idea overall. Is 'seizing the opportunity to fix the information system' an even larger project than dealing with HIPAA itself? I suspect that interchange formats are a difficult enough problem by themselves - they generally seem to be. > Again the principle of reification, or in plain English the ability to >make assertions regarding the classifications allows us to place these >ontologies into "contexts" or "spaces". One's regard for a particular >ontology is then applied to its context. As an individual, I can use only >those ontologies in a particular "context" and I can apply a belief value >(i.e. create a Bayesian network) to individual statements or entire >ontologies as I choose. That makes it sound wonderfully simple, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where such 'reification' is the answer. "As an individual" is a concept which has almost no respect in the world of software development and systems integration, I fear, and is a privilege currently available only to systems developers, not system users. > [...much good technical which does nothing to ease my concerns...] > >Again, think of RDF as an assembly language for semantic reasoning, but >realize that real benefits won't be achieved until we get high level >languages and tools. I'd like to see higher-level languages and tools which make these concepts available to developers other than ontology specialists, but I have serious doubts about 'real benefits' which rely on large-scale agreements, RDF or not. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
