- From: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:59:58 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
On Dec 26, 2003, at 1205, Jim Hendler wrote: > > Drew,. I agree completely if we use your definition of > ontology-merging. Partial mappings have a greater > success (particularly allowing heuristic mechanisms), and of course > there's no reason we can't have some human in the loop. Also, none of > the literature I know allows instances to be mapped against multiple > ontologies, which is a new idea that occurs easily on the Semantic > Web, and which opens many opportunities for new research. > So I guess I'm kidding myself > -JH Hey, Jim... I don't often post to this group but this discussion is near to my heart - well, at least to my research interests. I think the answer depends not so much on the ontologies, but on the systems that advertise those ontologies as a description of what they "know about". Your prescription would be fine if all you want to do is content management. There, close is good enough. Close is not good enough for many database integration applications, where much could hinge on the correctness of the mapping (e.g., a factory floor control application). Drew is likely to be correct that such mappings will be hard to come by automatically, but, just like what kind of "ontology" you need depends on what you want to do with it, so it is with what kind of mappings you need. Bottom line is I don't think you're kidding yourself so long as you stick to (vary) fault-tolerant applications. Question: What does it mean "[to map] instances against multiple ontologies"? .bill -- Bill Andersen (andersen@ontologyworks.com) Chief Scientist Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com) 1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104 Odenton, Maryland 21113 United States Office: 410-674-7600 Mobile: 443-858-6444
Received on Monday, 29 December 2003 10:02:48 UTC