- From: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:26:30 +0100
- To: रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur) <ravinderthakur@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "Andreas Langegger" <al@jku.at>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "semantic_web@googlegroups.com" <semantic_web@googlegroups.com>
Hi, On 23.10.2008, at 17:02, रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur) wrote: > actually i am not a big fan of ontologies. infact i think trying to > fit data into some ontology might be wrong. the problems are that > ontologies are overly restirctive if they are finite and well > defined and if they are ambiguious then they are not ontologies. > > eg. take the general example of one's parents. its very normal to > have ontology with parents defined as one father and one mother but > what happens to the case of surrogate mothers, or doner fathers/ > mothers etc. and what happens to the adopted kids. how can be their > parent relationships be represented completely with any well defined > ontology ? on the other hand only using RDF without any creating any > relation to some associated ontology might be a complete system. > > if ontology is finite and well defined then it won't be complete and > if its not well defined and not finite, well then i would say its > not an ontology. Hmmm... I understand what you're saying. However, this is probably one of the reasons why OWL and RDFS (in one a popular interpretation) have the open-world assumption. So, in fact, an ontology or any data following this assumption can never claim to be complete or finite. Ontologies are not database schemas. For a system as vast and chaotic as the Web I think this is quite sensible to assume. Cheers, Knud ------------------------------------------------- Knud Möller, MA +353 - 91 - 495086 Smile Group: http://smile.deri.ie Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway Institiúid Taighde na Fiontraíochta Digití Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2008 17:27:10 UTC