OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [tm-pubsubj-comment] RE: [topicmapmail] Re: [topicmaps-comment]Genetic PSIs [Re: Topi c Map domain, paradigmatic PSIs ...]


Martin:

In practice, I agree. I think John's point is that one should STANDARDIZE
only shallow, generic things. Then people can extend them in specific areas.


My Oak Ridge ontologies are very specific. Actually the ontologies are
fairly shallow, but the taxonomies built below them are very deep and
complex.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Martin Bryan [SMTP:mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 09, 2002 5:45 AM
> To:	Mason, James David (MXM) ; 'Steven R. Newcomb'; Bernard Vatant
> Cc:	topicmaps-comment; tm-pubsubj-comment; topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> Subject:	Re: [topicmapmail] Re: [topicmaps-comment] Genetic PSIs [Re:
> Topi	c Map domain, paradigmatic PSIs ...]
> 
> Jim
> 
> > I take John Sowa's advice to heart. He likes (paraphrasing his words)
> broad,
> > shallow, very generic ontologies, as opposed to the SUMO and Cyc people
> who
> > are trying to build comprehensive, deep, detailed ontologies.
> 
> I like the sentiment, but its wrong in one sense. Ontologies should never
> be
> "very generic": they should be highly targeted. They need to be shallow
> but
> because the relationships between items change for different scenarios an
> ontology should not try to cover the whole universe of discourse but only
> a
> clearly defined part of the universe. For example, how useful would an
> ontology that broadly covered the subject of food be for the
> identification
> of data resources at Oak Ridge?
> 
> Martin


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC