4579Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...
- May 30, 2013Jim,Thanks for the response. Works for me! Best,Keith
From: Jim Smallwood <jimbit@...>
To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...
I hope I'm not off-base here, but I believe what Keipat is asking is typically handled by the use of SEE, SEE ALSO and PREFERRED or NOB-PREFERRED references to address uncertainties.In addition, and to break out of arguments revolving around personal term preferences, reference known authorities such as Library of Congress and others.Trying to build on idiosyncrasies is a slippery slope. Adhering to the authority of standards can avoid those issues.Jim SmallwoodSchweitzer Engineering Laboratories
On May 30, 2013, at 10:01, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them. How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.) Any thoughts on this? I don't mind being told I'm way off base here. Please advise and thanks to all.Keith DeWeese
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>