- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:53:35 -0500
- To: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Alan, > >> Another go at a difficult problem that ought to be easy... >> >> It seems to me that a critical issue is which of two cases you are >>dealing with: >> >> Case 1: You are using an existing ontology as a reference to >>annotate, label, or otherwise carry static information for >>applications which will query it at 'run time'. The applications >>assume that all implications are explicit and add no new >>information to the ontology. >> >> Case 2: You are re-using the ontology as a module of a larger >>ontology which you are authoring, possibly to be used eventually as >>in case 1. > >Indeed -- I tried to add it to the new draft. I think it is >important to identify these two cases, but at the same time I don't >think they affect most of these approaches all that much. Approach 2 >clearly is problematic if you are dealing with Case 1, but others >don't seem to alter the "natural" semantics. I don't think the issue >of whether the hierarchy is classified or not per se belongs in this >note. It is a separate usage issue, the one where you have a great >point to make and I hope will put it into another document from the >WG that this one can cross-reference. I am a big believer to address >only the specific issue at stake in these types of documents and to >give the reader pointers for all the other issues it touches upon. > >Or do you think this more detailed discussion really belongs in this >note (and not another one)? Actually this seems like a very general point that we could make which goes beyond the tricks-and-techniques style of our topics so far, and which we could legitimately make as a piece of best-practice advice. As a general matter of best practice, be aware that there might be several different possible styles that an ontology could use. So, as a general matter of improving interopreability, when composing a new ontology which uses a term from an existing ontology, *use the same style* as that ontology. If you can't, for other reasons, consider not using that term, but instead find (or invent) one which is defined in an ontology which uses a compatible style. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 11:53:40 UTC