- From: Pieter De Leenheer <pdeleenh@vub.ac.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:57:02 +0200
- To: "Abdoul" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3c.org>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, <fchum@chevron.com>
In any case, we must not end up there...._again_. Ontologies are not datamodels. Data models are sharable between applications because they define an agreement on the meaning of the data being exchanged. Similarly, ontologies should be sharable by stakeholders in a community (each having their own data models and applications) by defining an agreement on the meaning of the various data models. This requires a balance between (upper) ontologies and lower ontologies: Upper ontologies refer to context-independent and language neutral concepts. Such inter-organisational agreements exist already in certain sectors. Lower ontologies specialise these upper ontologies for pragmatic purposes, such as the alignment between sectors in a certain context. The latter are more dependent on organisational vocabularies. This approach of course contradicts the the network (Web) economy,that is characterised by the heterogeneity, distributedness, and autonomy of stakeholders. This may call for a methodology, i.e. a standard procedure to follow when reusing standards, etc. In any case the problem is rather social/cultural/organisational than merely technical. On 09 Aug 2009, at 23:55, Abdoul wrote: > PwC: Do you sense some danger that we could have a lot of enthusiasm > here and end up with a lot of non-compatible ontologies? Are we > going to enter a period where there will need to be some sort of > master data model, a master ontology model effort? Dr. Pieter De Leenheer Semantics Technology & Applications Research Laboratory Vrije Universiteit Brussel T +32 2 629 37 50 | M +32 497 336 553 | F +32 2 629 38 19 Check out my blog: http://www.pieterdeleenheer.be
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 07:57:44 UTC