Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)

[Bernard Vatant]

*Sean
> If this discussion is proving uninteresting or irrelevant to the mailing
> list, please let us know and we can take it elsewhere....

Assuming that Tony's answer to that is representative, let's keep on for a while :)

*SB
> I suppose the issue here is that I think that inference is crucial if
> we're going to get added value from machine processing (and really have a
> *Semantic* web).

Agreed. I guess no one will argue on that. But OTOH I guess users (astronomers)
want also added value in the human-machine interface also. And, the way I figure it, OWL
would be good for the machine processing added value, but TM would be good for the
human-machine interface added value. That goes along the lines of what Carol wrote in a
previous post that we should not look as those technologies as concurrents, looking for
the "killer app", but audit what each of them could bring, and eventually put the pieces
where they fit. The tricky thing is to figure how to make them work together ...

*BV
> > Is there less semantics in the TM expression than in the OWL expression?
> > Let alone the capacity of the latter to draw inferences ...

That was not begging the answer, but a reallly naive question :)

*SB
> I'm afraid I don't quite follow this, and don't see where the semantics
> are here.

Oh, you mean by semantics here the machine-interpretability, right?

> How do I know (without you having to tell me extra stuff about
> the interpretation of your particular association types) that the
> assertion above should be interpreted as the given constraint? I.e. that
> class_colour restricts the class to having the particular colour. Is this
> how I *always* interpret an association type? And if not, how do I ensure
> that this information is conveyed?

OK. Good point. There is indeed no way to make sure about that, in a completely automatic
way, from inside the topic map.
The interpretation of class_colour association has to put in the loop some external
definition of the association type,
e.g. through a published subject indicator.

*SB
> As a more complicated example ... <snip/>

I think there is no need for the more complicated example :)

Cheers

Bernard