> [us] for UniverSal, not specific to France or United Kingdom :-).
Bush syndrom ? ;-))
> I am very appreciative of the ongoing substantive discussion on this
> topic. I really think we are getting somewhere new and hopefully useful.
Lets keep on...
> However, what I am attempting to understand is whether ontologies
> 1) need to have a "global" scope and 2) need to be "pre-defined".
Yes, I must confess I think so for my own stacke : decision support
1) Global scope : because to enable decision support you have to be able to
"treat" each and every kind of document.
2) Pre-defined : that is the main discussion point ; you can imagine that if
I took time to elaborate a 35 000 + terms list, it was not just for the fun
of it ? (some kind of goulag's work :-))
2-1) because for a large set of MD to use a product, it has to be "ready
now"
2-2) if you don't "manage" the ontologie, you will probably encounter the
"point of vue" problem (a term has different meaning seen from a GP and from
a psychiatrist) - if you dont eliminate it, it can kill your process.
2-3) in Europe there are different langages - your term list has to be
translatable : see point 2-2
1) and 2)
To understand my point of view, you must see the ontology as the "words of a
langage" and Odyssee's trees as "sentences".
Now what are we working on ?
We already know how to express any medical document as a tree.
You can guess we can also express knowledge documents as well : for example
a drug contra-indication.
Then we can have the computer automatically compare both.
Dont you think building the vocabulary is the first stage ?
Of course pre-defined doesn't mean it is fixed for ever : we keep working on
it, and will do it for a very long time.
> Remember, languages, semantics, and ontologies are invented to serve a
> communication function. New terms and new meanings for existing terms
> cannot be avoided. Communications are always local in nature (from the
> transmitter to the recipient). This is the theoretical basis for the
> simplified approach to ontologies that OIO uses.
Here you are pre-historical ;-))
"Langages are invented to serve a communication function" all-right, but
since man can write, it also is used for knowledge storage !
And that is not local in nature at all.
This is the theoretical basis for the pre-defined approach to ontologies
that Odyssee uses.
> The recipient says, "what do you mean by average"? :-) I would argue that
> you need more than traditional ontologies to understand what "average
> weight" means. For example, you *may* need to know who measured it, how
> many raw values are averaged, over what period of time, with or without
> shoes, etc etc. This infinite list of possible requirements vary from term
> to term and from application to application.
What I think is that when "Average weight" comes, your system must store
"Average weight". You cannot guess if that data will be understood and used
by a smart Agent since you don't know which Agents will be installed in that
very computer (except if, due to a Fil guide, you organized that kind of
description to feed an Agent).
That "non deterministic" approach may seem disappointing, but mechanical
approach doesn't work at all !
> Cogniticians are not needed at all. (What are they suppose to do anyways
> :-)?
I must confess I am that kind of people !
I hope you will discover I can be usefull sometimes ;-)
Philippe
Odyssee project
www.nautilus-info.com
