Re: SUO: Ontology Structure & Content

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Graham,

I agree that your list of attributes is a better choice than
the one that Erdmann used for his illustration or the example
that I suggested by adding more distinctions to Erdmann's table.

>Basically, I would group Erdmann and your beverage types in
>a different way. The basic attributes I see are: 
>*	temperature, 
>*	constituents: 
>*	minerals, 
>*	plant extracts: 
>*	leaf, 
>*	fruit, 
>*	bean, 
>*	wood, 
>*	bark, and 
>*	root, 
>*	animal extracts: 
>*	meat, and 
>*	milk, 
>*	brewed extracts:
>*	alcohol, and 
>*	bacilli; and 
>*	"aeration":
>*	"fizz", and 
>*	froth.  

>This provides a far more comprehensive structure, without
>even ranging beyond the beverages you mentioned other than to add the
>logical additional alternatives. It allows further elaboration, such as >from

>what species the extracts derived, and what particular extract >compositions

>are involved. It would thus more readily accommodate such beverages as
>cappuccino, cocoa, soy milk, Irish coffee, kava, Bovril, yoghurt and so >on,

>even flat beer and champagne. 

The point I was making is that the lattice-based approach
can support incremental modifications at any level of detail.
I showed how Erdmann's original lattice, which I'm sure he
would admit is very limited, can be extended by adding more
distinctions to his table.  Any or all of your distinctions
can be incorporated in the lattice by makind additions and/or
deletions one at a time (or two or three or more at a time,
if you like).  At every step of the way, you have a lattice,
which can be automatically extended as far as you like.

The important point is to have a systematic methodology,
preferably supported by software that can make the updates
automatically.  The techniques of Formal Concept Analysis
are an example of such an approach, but there are other
methods that can be used to supplement, extend, or even
replace them as desired.

Developing the tools and methodologies for extending, refining,
and sharing ontologies are just as important, and perhaps even
more important than any particular choice of categories we may
develop or propose for the SUO.

John