W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

Ontological constraints

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:02:32 -0800
Message-ID: <20110310110232.95785c1z3lju21xk@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Pursuant to our discussion today on the WG conference call about FR's  
and ontological constraints, this quote I first saw when Tom Baker  
posted it, and later I discovered the actual article it was from:

5. Minimal ontological commitment: An ontology should require the  
minimal ontological commitment sufficient to support the intended  
knowledge sharing activities. An ontology should make as few claims as  
possible about the world being modeled, allowing the parties committed  
to the ontology freedom to specialize and instantiate the ontology as  
needed. Since ontological commitment is based on consistent use of  
vocabulary, ontological commitment can be minimized by specifying the  
weakest theory (allowing the most models) and defining only those  
terms that are essential to the communication of knowledge consistent  
with that theory.

Gruber, Thomas R. ?Toward principles for the design of ontologies used  
for knowledge sharing.? International Journal Human-Computer Studies  
43 (1993): 907-928.
(p.3)

I think what our discussion was dancing around was whether we think  
that the FRBR entity constraints constitute the appropriate level of  
commitment. Some think that it is, others feel that it  
over-constrains. Perhaps the message from the group (for the report)  
is that the level of constraint needs to be investigated in relation  
to the "knowledge sharing activities".

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:03:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 March 2011 19:03:09 GMT