AW: Ontological constraints

Karen, Jeff,

A late note on this:

> 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.

Tom quoted Karen in saying 

[[
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:35:22AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I actually think that we should emphasize the "has a" rather than "is  
> a" aspects of the resources we describe, and let the "has a" allow us  
> to infer any number of "is a" qualities. This is the message that Jon  
> Phipps gave at the tutorial day at DC in Pittsburgh -- that we  
> describe things by their characteristics, and those characteristics  
> tell us what the thing *is*. 

Yes, that sounds right to me.  Emphasize Properties
(relationships) over Classes. Verbs over nouns.  Describe
things less through giving them a name -- i.e., writing a
definition for a class of things to which they belong --
and more through enumerating their characteristics.
]] [1]

If this is so, then I'd say that we _definitely_ need to state domain/range for the properties, otherwise The System (TM) will not be able to find out what the thing is, even if it knows the characteristics. Does that make sense?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0025.html

All the best,

Lars


  **** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
  **** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****

-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
http://www.dnb.de/
l.svensson@dnb.de


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im
> Auftrag von Young,Jeff (OR)
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. März 2011 20:11
> An: Karen Coyle; public-lld
> Betreff: 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 Wednesday, 16 March 2011 08:15:57 UTC