Re: do you know ofPeter Clark <email@example.com>
From: Peter Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: do you know of
To: @firewheel.cs.utexas.edu (Fritz Lehmann)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 12:38:56 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
In-reply-to: <9506061754.AA05265@rodin.wustl.edu> from "Fritz Lehmann" at Jun 6, 95 12:54:13 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Re: your thought-provoking observation of the lack of published ontologies.
I agree wholeheartedly with the other circulated comments that that's where
the `meat' really is, and that it's a sorely neglected area.
But let me add a (maybe unjustified) concern: What I wouldn't like to
now see is a lot of isa-hierarchies published, with little or no information
in the general/top-level concepts. The whole notion of sharable KBs is based
on the idea of reusable, composable components of knowledge. So what I'd like
from an ontology paper is a library of components (eg. top-level frames,
general CGs), and a method for composing them to build the specific
representation I want (eg. multiple inheritance, maximal join). It's the
component library, not a specific representation built from it, which is what
is of interest, and is likely to have the long shelf-life.
For example, your ontology may model a room as a container but I want to
model it as a point location (or person as a thing/process, carpet as
in/partof the room etc.). This ontological distinction isn't really
important (it's a task-dependent question), and shouldn't distract the
debate -- what is important is that I have the components available in
the first place (ie. a representation of what it *means* to be a "container"
or a "point location") to be able to build either of these models as needed.
Peter Clark (email@example.com) Department of Computer Science
tel: (512) 471-9565 University of Texas at Austin
fax: (512) 471-8885 Austin, Texas, 78712, USA.
Project homepage: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb