Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
costello@m... (Roger L. Costello) writes: >The namespace of the elements indicates the Ontology. As I mentioned >earlier, an Ontology can evolve in a distributed fashion. There need >not be a centralized committee of experts. Besides, even if there was, >I would argue that creating a centralized committee to create a logical >design (i.e., an Ontology), and then allowing (encouraging!) diversity >of physical expressions ain't a bad way to go! There's still a centralized set of agreed meanings, frequently meanings with pretensions to truth. That's useful for some situations, a nuisance for others. Personally I find such classifications useful when I'm looking for something (library cataloging) but far less useful when I'm trying to understand something. Metadata is great stuff, but it's no more a cure-all than agreed schemas. >Naturally, you will most likely want to involve domain experts in >deciding what are the fundamental terms and their relationships. Not naturally, no. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Unfortunately, experts seem frequently to be people who assume everyone should listen to them, and ontologists seem to fall into the same trap. There is - or should be - a lot of room for markup applications without the "Knowledge Technology" claims piling on. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
