RE: Ontological constraints

I think the key phrase is "sufficient to support the intended knowledge
sharing activities".

One area of disagreement seems to be on the need to proliferate
properties to encode the domain and/or range in the property name
itself.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:03 PM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: Ontological constraints
> 
> 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 19:11:40 UTC