Comments on ontologies
Un article de Caverne des 1001 nuits.
| 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).
