W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Evidence

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:53:18 -0400
Message-Id: <29A86921-AF62-405A-A5EF-45692D2AD9C1@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>

On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
> VK> I think Pat raises a very valid point. I do sense that folks  
> are treating BFO as “true” and sometimes probably trying to shoe- 
> horn their requirements into it. The scientific method requires  
> that the various constructs and distinctions of BFO (and for that  
> matter others such as DOLCE, OpenCyc, etc.) be evaluated from the  
> use perspective and see if they bring any value in the context of a  
> real application probably healthcare and life sciences.
Usually I think of the scientific method as trying to determine  
truth, not utility, though as you know I'm a big one for utility.  
Note that my general support for BFO has been based on its utility in  
collaboratively building ontologies for combining knowledge,  
particularly OBI and in the HCLS demo. I'm quite interested in anyone  
else's work that might be used to be able to evaluate alternatives,  
but I plan to invest my limited time in continuing to use and improve  
BFO until it breaks in a way that can't be fixed.
> BTW, I do not intend to evaluate whether these constructs are  
> ontologically sound, etc. but the question we need to answer as a  
> group is: Are these constructs useful?
I don't know what "ontologically sound" means. I would offer that a  
"best practice" would be be to make sure that part of our "acceptance  
tests" for agreeing that something is useful is that many of us  
understand what is meant by a construct.

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 15:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:48 GMT