Comments on ontologies

Un article de Caverne des 1001 nuits.

(Différences entre les versions)
Version du 21 décembre 2013 à 09:07 (modifier)
1001nuits (Discuter | Contributions)
(Nouvelle page : Some comments can be made about ontologies. Comment 1: They are a data centric approach. Data is not absolute in itself and is a consequence of the point of view of the viewer. Com...)
← Différence précédente
Version du 21 décembre 2013 à 09:11 (modifier) (défaire)
1001nuits (Discuter | Contributions)

Différence suivante →
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
Some comments can be made about ontologies. Some comments can be made about ontologies.
-Comment 1: They are a data centric approach. Data is not absolute in itself and is a consequence of the point of view of the viewer.+Comment 1: This is a big one. They are a data centric approach. Data is not absolute in itself and is a consequence of the point of view of the viewer.
Comment 2: Problem in design between concept and attribute. Attribute can be a concept also. We are coming back to OO class diagram design issues. Comment 2: Problem in design between concept and attribute. Attribute can be a concept also. We are coming back to OO class diagram design issues.
Ligne 8 : Ligne 8 :
Comment 4: This is a big one. Ontologies should be able to represent much more than classic OO concepts. It could be possible to generalize the "instance of" concept. A is an instance B that is an instance of C. Generally, in language complexity, we can see this kind of multiple levels of instantiations. Comment 4: This is a big one. Ontologies should be able to represent much more than classic OO concepts. It could be possible to generalize the "instance of" concept. A is an instance B that is an instance of C. Generally, in language complexity, we can see this kind of multiple levels of instantiations.
 +
 +Comment 5: This is also a big one. A tree is one of the most ambiguous way of representing knowledge. Knowledge is more a graph of nodes with various kinds of links. In ontologies, trees are used to represent inheritance, but inheritance can be multiple. Inheritance in indeed a very strong connection between classes and the tree view is proposing the interpretation that things could be represented in a tree (which is not the case at all).

Version du 21 décembre 2013 à 09:11

Some comments can be made about ontologies.

Comment 1: This is a big one. They are a data centric approach. Data is not absolute in itself and is a consequence of the point of view of the viewer.

Comment 2: Problem in design between concept and attribute. Attribute can be a concept also. We are coming back to OO class diagram design issues.

Comment 3: Ontologies are too generic as a tool. There can be intermediate level of abstractions.

Comment 4: This is a big one. Ontologies should be able to represent much more than classic OO concepts. It could be possible to generalize the "instance of" concept. A is an instance B that is an instance of C. Generally, in language complexity, we can see this kind of multiple levels of instantiations.

Comment 5: This is also a big one. A tree is one of the most ambiguous way of representing knowledge. Knowledge is more a graph of nodes with various kinds of links. In ontologies, trees are used to represent inheritance, but inheritance can be multiple. Inheritance in indeed a very strong connection between classes and the tree view is proposing the interpretation that things could be represented in a tree (which is not the case at all).