Re: CG: More meat for the ontological stew
> >Shirky seems to have a general strategy of adopting a very constraining
> >definition of a particular project, pointing out a flaw that follows from
> >that definition and then saying that the project is doomed. He doesn't
> >seem to imagine that the projects could address those problems.
> >
> >Oddly, his basic strategy seems to rely on the essentialism he rejects.
> >i.e. ...
> >
> >Shirky: Ontologies are rigid, absolutist and essentialist.
> >Representations need to handle context and different point of views in
> >order. Therefore, ontologies are destined to fail.
> >
> >Ontologist: True. We should make ontologies and the systems that use
> >them be able handle context, multiple points of view, and a variety of
> >conceptual frameworks so that they can express all of the things people
> >will want to express.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry for intruding but there is currently work about ontologies that
> allow multiple
> points of view, ako personalization. This work is associated to that of
> evolving ontologies.
>
>
> With my Kindest Regards,
>
> Sofia
Very true. Many people are aware of the shortcomings that he is bringing
up and have made important steps overcome them (e.g., the Cyc ontology).
I'm sorry if my writing seemed to imply that I thought otherwise.
Sofia, would you recommend any particular papers, conferences, or
researchers who work on evolving ontologies?
Thank you.
John C.