Re: Ideas for a possible framework

Hmm. Ok. So.

Having a hard time understanding what you're trying to get at, but
let's phrase it as a question;

Because so few use OWL and RDFS, you want to define a higher level
ontology that can do a lot of the typing / assertions for you
automagically? Is that roughly it?

A few pointers, and forgive my bluntness but I'm time-poor; Hopefully
your thoughts are better structured than you document. :) I'd lose the
license (or just use a link if you feel you need it), don't open with
the license either (jumping straight into legal is a sure way to lose
most of the people you want to engage in discussion), instead have a
nice preamble or intro to what your document is and what it's trying
to achieve, because neither is clear. At the end, have a section with
a conclusion or proposal or something tangible people can take away
from all this. Meddling in metamodels and ontologies are fine and fun
and is probably worth while, however you need to get more specific
about a) what the problem is, and b) how you think you can solve it.
Right now the document is a bit of a mess, I can't quite make heads or
tails out of it.

All in good spirits.


Cheers,

Alex

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've updated my draft document because I've realized it was not such clear
> as I wanted it to be. Could someone recommend me further readings,
> considering my attempts described in the attachment, so I can take advantage
> on what is already done in the ontology / inference fields?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Sebastián.



-- 
 Information Alchemist / UX consultant / GUI developer for hire
 http://thinkplot.org     |  http://www.linkedin.com/in/shelterit

Received on Sunday, 13 November 2016 01:03:53 UTC