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

RE: Evidence

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:07:51 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1248402C1@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>


> 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.

[VK] Thanks for the clarification. But I propose that we can leverage
the scientific method to determine: Is it true that X is useful? :)

> 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.

[VK] Clearly there is some utility to BFO which cannot be denied. 
But the concern which Pat was raising was that at what threshold does
the number of workarounds becomes an issue?

For instance, If I have to do workarounds for > 50% of the classes/properties I
represent using BFO/DOLCE/OpenCyc, then there is a
Problem.. 

The other issue is what value does this workaround bring us, a question you
address later, see my response below.

> 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.

[VK] I think this is a good start. What would be a set of acceptance tests for
something like BFO/DOLCE/OpenCyc...?

Acceptance Test 1: Understandeability?
Acceptance Test 2: Ability to express my information needs without jumping
through hoops>?
Acceptance Test 3: Ability to align with other "standards" 

Any further ideas?

---Vipul





The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 16:08:19 GMT

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