Bob,

Your points seem to underscore effectively the diverse uses in academic research and business applications of Ontology methodologies and begs for further discussion of the challenges of quality metrics in various domains.

Some large firms, for example, are beginning to focus on Policy driven ontologies ( PDO ) as an approach to evaluating application interoperability as part of an architectural analysis. One of the obvious drivers of PDO is external regulatory demands (SOX, Basel II, HIPAA, etc.) which puts continuous pressures on Boards of Directors for adapting to new contexts.

Thanks for your insight. How does GSX cope?

Rob Smith

Tall Tree Labs

Ron Schuldt writes:

Isn't it also safe to say that any ontology must select a definition for a given word and then use it consistently throughout the ontology - regardless the other possible uses?

Chris Menzel writes:

If I want to keep using "widget" with my meaning, I can rename occurrences of "widget" in O1 systematically (with "O1-widget", say) and the ambiguity disappears.

Chris also says:

But one of the points of building an ontology is to *fix* meaning and thereby to *avoid* confusion.

I suggest that the point of building an ontology is to document meaning and thereby enhance understanding. That the meaning of words/terms/phrases may differ with context is a given. An ontology should routinely include context in its architecture, such that it is capable for example of documenting multiple meanings of a 'widget' along with their associated contexts. Note that I do not suggest that ambiguity will 'disappear'. Nor do I see that as a practical goal. Since an ontology that tracks a real world will grow/morph over time, meanings cannot be 'fixed'. On the other hand, inference machines work pretty well when presented with fuzzy data.

Cheers,

Bob Miller