Re: Beyond Ontologies
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >Technically, ontologies can certainly change. Culturally, however, the >paeans to ontologies that I see appear driven by a deep need for a sense >of stability at least, a sense of monolithic truth at worst. > > Not the paens of OWL. OWL is explicitly designed to allow ontologies to extend other ontologies -- perhaps that is OWL's claim to fame in ontoland. Now certainly there is Cyc, and the SUO effort, but don't mistake OWL for either. It's designed along the loosey goosey RDF idea that "anyone can say anything about anything". Particularly OWL Full, that's what makes it so computationaly difficult. It turns out that if you limit what folks can say (in certain ways) that you make an impossible computational problem -> possible. i.e. the difference between n-th order logic and description logic. >Economically, the whole thing is sold as "once you do this, you'll be >able to make all your information meaningful at low low cost", and I'm >not sure that's compatible with regular change. > > Perhaps. Perhaps that will be a cost of extensibility, sort of like the difference between machine code and high level languages in terms of computational efficiency. Perhaps we'll develop ontology tools that will solve these issues. Jonathan
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