Re: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
Jim,
I have heard some comments along the same lines:
> At my employer (US Government), I'm finding more and
> more ontology projects, but I have to wonder about
> the quality and value of them. Some start with
> taxonomies and add some basic OWL relationships.
> Others appear to take abstract/complex terms (found
> in enterprise architectures) and add relationships.
> Others are such quick efforts, one has to wonder.
> Others are developed with little or no background or
> experience in ontology development. Most projects
> appear to be starting with terms, not concepts.
Some of us have been criticizing ontologies done by
professionals. If we find problems in those, you can
imagine what kinds of disgusting flora and fauna lurk
in the ones done by amateurs.
That's why I suggested that we address the problem of
working on a document about principles for developing
and defining ontologies. I think that could be a
document that we could agree to more quickly than
a complete upper ontology, and it would be very
welcome for a very wide audience.
Without such a document, the remains of the flora and
fauna buried in those so-called ontologies are going
to smell real bad, real soon. And it will stink up
the whole field.
John