W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Any reason for ontology reuse?

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:35:22 +0100
Cc: Martijn van der Plaat <martijn@profec.nl>, Percy Enrique Rivera Salas <privera.salas@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Message-Id: <6D3AA5A0-37DC-4FD3-A188-AA05E520A704@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
In general, I think that the Semantic Web must use a decentralized  
approach for the definition and adoption of conceptual elements, same  
as the Web uses decentralized, fault-tolerant approaches as a  
fundamental principle. So calling for standardization bodies to  
maintain "authoritative" vocabularies will not work at Web Scale, IMO.  
At least, standards bodies may be to slow to provide ontologies and  
ontology updates (INCOTERMS, for instance, updates it's definition of  
trade terms only once per decade)

A few related papers:

1. Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of  
Relevant Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.  
90-96, Jan-Feb 2007
PDF: http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf

2. E-Business Vocabularies as a Moving Target: Quantifying the  
Conceptual Dynamics in Domains, Proceedings of the 16th International  
Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management  
(EKAW2008), September 29 - October 3, 2008 (forthcoming), Acitrezza,  
Italy, Springer LNCS, Vol. 5268, pp. 388-403.
PDF: http://www.heppnetz.de/files/ConceptualDynamics-EKAW2008-CRC-final6.pdf

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 09:35:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:24 UTC