ONT RE: Ontology case study
Jim,
At 09:36 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Jim Farrugia wrote:
[snip]
>Maybe Adam could also chime in on why he feels that the
>case study he mentioned used an ontology not a data model. I will study
>again the correspondence between Matthew and Adam on that, but I am wondering
>if Adam might be able to collect his points into a short list?
1. An ontology helps make explicit and formal the definitions of
terms. By being explicit about the terms in a common database, it makes
clearer how client databases are to be mapped in. With only English
comments on the meaning of terms in a common database, there is more room
for ambiguity. Although not employed during the course of the project I
described, having formal definitions also enables the use of theorem
proving to automate tasks such as consistency checking and data cleaning.
2. A point in the case study that I should have made more salient was the
value of an upper ontology, not just the value of formal definitions. An
upper ontology helps further to make explicit assumptions which might
remain unelucidated if a strictly bottom-up approach to ontology
development were undertaken. I'd be happy to elaborate further on examples
of this if you're interested.
>Thanks,
>
>Jim
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571