Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity"

On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:

> Current ontology infrastructure requires that we reach consensus  
> first. Human communication on the contrary allows us to postpone  
> dispute and clarification to a later point in time in which the  
> disagreement becomes relevant, if it ever gets relevant.

I think that this "current ontology infrastructure" is the way it is  
because hard experience of people who have spend a fair amount of  
time working integrating data have found that it always is relevant,  
and by the time it is relevant, the amount of work required is  
substantial, and is repeated by each consumer of the information.

My feeling is that aiming for consensus on ontology beforehand is a  
pro-consumer stance, as opposed to a pro-producer stance.  
Historically, producers of information, for the most part, have not  
been particularly motivated to worry about how their data can be  
combined with others. In many cases they have actively worked against  
it.

-Alan