Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Ontologies and volunteers
Mei Lin Fung wrote: (01)
> Has anyone read the Professor and the Madman? About the making of the
> Oxford English Dictionary? .... They took the position that in
> relation to the definition of words, there is value in recording and
> citing “usage” and that there is no “right” definition, because that
> would kill any living language.
>
> ...it took 27 years from the first suggestion of a dictionary to
> record all English words, to the actual beginning of the project,…
>
Great post, Mei Lin. (02)
Sobering to realize the time scales, but fascinating to know that
"usage"
makes a useful resolution/alternative to the standardization process. (03)
I also wanted to note in passing that "standard ontology" can never
successfully
be a singular term, but "standard ontologies" can be a successful
plural. (04)
In the same way that we have a UML standard, as well as Booch diagrams
and other communication standards, and in the same that we have a
"standard" biological classification sceme (despite its weaknesses), the (05)
existence of such standards permits communication and allows progress. (06)
One of topic maps great features is that it allows a term to have
"scope",
so the same term can have different meanings in different contexts. The
"usage" idea is eqivalent to listing the different scopes in which a
term may
appear (and what it means in that scope. (07)
Similarly, all of the terms and concepts that comprise a single scope
would seem to me to constitute an ontology. (Jack: Does that sound
reasonable?) (08)