From: Jerry Hobbs (hobbs@ai.sri.com)
Date: 02/07/02
Bob, > This isn't my area of expertise, but isn't a major point > of the ontological work in DAML that you don't have to > reach agreement on a common ontology to import and use > someone else's markup. > > Rather than trying to reach agreement on a common ontology > which might depend on how each participant expected to use > the markup data, would it make sense to agree that this > is a good area in which to test the ontological mapping > tools as there are already several alternative ontologies. I agree that the various ontologies for time constitute an excellent test case for people doing research on ontology mapping. But it seemed to me that the widespread use of DAML out in the world would be promoted by the existence of a number of very useful, comprehensive but clean ontologies that represent some measure of consensus. DAML-S is one such effort. Time could be another. I think there is probably an optimal level of coordination that is somewhere between individual research sites and global standardization, and that a DAML community-wide effort might be something worth aiming for. That wouldn't preclude alternative ontologies for particular uses. To daml-all: Please excuse the extra email. I expect to move it onto a special interest group mailing list as soon as we get all the expressions of interest. -- Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST