Dr. Ho,
I think that you have some valid points here.
>From: Andrew po-jung Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>The problem is that ambiguity cannot be "mandated" away. Human languages
evolve (with human understanding?). Any ontology that assumes full
compliance and proper use by "humans" is just 'sweeping the dirt under the
rug'.
I think that is wise to assume that the ontology is going to drift and build
that into the model.
>For drug-drug, drug-disease, and other uses of the ontology, my proposed
approach does not necessarity lead to more or less >ambiguity than
Philippe's approach. In fact, my approach does not preclude the
use/incorporation of existing ontologies into >the proposed "flexible"
framework.
>
>I would further propose that Philippe's "pre-built" approach is potentially
synergistic with my "evolving" approach. >Starting with a "pre-build"
framework may make it easier to stitch together pieces of the "evolving"
ontology.
My reply to the main thread was posted before I read your reply, but I think
that your statements support the position I was taking. I think that it
will be easier to start with "something" and then quickly grow that with
peer review.
Tim Cook's reply of using a Slashdot type support model sounds very doable
as growth medium for the OpenOntology.
Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
