Re: connections

> Kick me in the shin - ontologies are no more and no less than shared
> vocabularies through which we can communicate.

This is true if you define ontology this way:

Ontology: a shared vocabulary

But this is not the usual definition.  Everyone agrees that an ontology *
includes* a vocabulary which can be shared among multiple parties to
facilitate communication.  However, most definitions of 'ontology' include
much more than just a vocabulary.

Michael

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 April 2010 10:51, Alexander Johannesen
> <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 17:33, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
> wrote:
> >>> I personally think it is the one you left out;
> >> Oh, I left out way more than one!
> >
> > Ok, one of the many, many you left out.
> >
> >>>  * The tools we use to ingest and make sense of the data sucks.
> >>
> >> If we had compelling enough applications of the *data*, wouldn't we
> build
> >> the tools we need?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because I want to know where the nearest kennels are, and when will be
> best to plant tomatoes.
>
> These are compelling applications - both examples very geo-oriented,
> but we know how to do that.
>
> >>> Feel free to point to systems that are fuzzy enough to deal with the
> >>> onslaught of human information and create real knowledge from it. :)
> >>> (My biggest contenter is still Google Search, and they do it better
> >>> without all this hocus pocus RDF business)
>
> Google do seem to have noticed that the hocus pocus (whether or not
> they call it RDF) has its place. More to their credit I would say is
> that they do seem to see the social stuff as useful. Google may not be
> able to directly point me to the local kennels, but putting me in
> touch with a person that knows the answer is certainly close to scope.
>
> >> This sounds more like "doing something with the data we have is too
> >> difficult" or "the content of the data isn't what we need [without lots
> of
> >> extra processing" then a deficiency in the tools available.
> >
> > Hmm, not following you, but maybe a clarification of what "tools" mean
> > to me might help; In my world, tools is the generic form of "doing
> > something with the data that might solve some problem", be it
> > applications, services or, indeed, the more folksy definition of
> > tools.
>
> On those points I'd have to point to the tools we already have, like a
> human and a telephone directory.
> More relevant to the tech, the local database.
>
> > The Semantic Web was crafted on the potential of fixing problems a tad
> > bit better than what we already had that already fixed the problems,
>
> I disagree somewhat - would take me a while to find the exact quote,
> but Tim has stated words to the effect that the semweb can make
> problems previously considered impossible become a bit obvious. (A
> point with which I agree strongly).
>
> > so basically fixing a non-existent problem. It was also built on the
> > promise of reusable ontologies on top of data, and even though the
> > promise wasn't held the potential is still there, for sure. But we
> > haven't got the tools to deal with that part of it all that took us
> > (speaking in generic fuzzy terms here) by surprise;
>
> But we (in the affluent West at least) each have the hardware,
> software and connectivity to put us in the zone of making real use of
> this stuff. I still don't understand why we are so slow at making it
> so.
>
> > Humans aren't strongly typed, and the data we create sort of falls in
> > between strong and no type, where our tools have to do what our brains
> > do with ease; fill in the gaps. But that seems like an almost
> > impossible task for software at the moment *because* the breadth of
> > our current SemWeb tools have far too much scope for our systems to
> > deal with it, and certainly in any pragmatic form. (But I'm sure
> > people will pipe up with their domain specific tools that convert the
> > informolasses into domain specific nuggets of re-usable knowledge. I'm
> > doing that myself, for one.)
>
> "informolasses" goes straight into my vocab, thanks.
> I suspect you're right about domain-specific tools, that reflects the
> human issues, the need to solve specific problems.
> While the Web of docs can be very generalist, I'm not so sure the Web
> of (linked) data will be useful in the same way, at least in the near
> term.
> For example, when I'm in gardening mode, I want a gardening
> application - that uses global data but within a locale filter.
>
>
> > All this data and their weak relationships are great to play with,
> > though, and it might shape things to come, but to get the masses to do
> > something interesting with it you need to convince them that
> > "ontology" is even a word that deserves a place in our daily
> > languages. (And don't tell me linked data doesn't need ontologies; a
> > kick in the shin if you do) Tough call, I'd say. If you say to them
> > "model", they immediately reach for Toad or some RDBMS thingy. If you
> > say "triplet" or, even worse, "tuple", they might think you're talking
> > about raising kids.
>
> Kick me in the shin - ontologies are no more and no less than shared
> vocabularies through which we can communicate.
>
> > In other words, the technology, its promises and potential means
> > *nothing* when a small paradigm shift is needed.
>
> Despite my negative comments recently, I do think that paradigm shift
> is happening.
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
>
> --
> http://danny.ayers.name
>
>