[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
>Not the paens of OWL. OWL is explicitly designed to allow ontologies
>to extend other ontologies -- perhaps that is OWL's claim to fame in
>ontoland.
Extensibility is not versioning. Haven't we been over that land in XML
already? Repeatedly?
>>Economically, the whole thing is sold as "once you do this, you'll be
>>able to make all your information meaningful at low low cost", and I'm
>>not sure that's compatible with regular change.
>>
>Perhaps. Perhaps that will be a cost of extensibility, sort of like
>the difference between machine code and high level languages in terms
>of computational efficiency. Perhaps we'll develop ontology tools that
>will solve these issues.
Great. Pour more tools on the problem. That'll help.
Never mind. I'll stick to solving small problems with small tools and
accepting that the connections between my data and any reality out there
is tenuous. Tools and logic don't solve that weak link.
|
