ORB Visualization
3/17/2004 5:52 PM
I did a search on “content ontology” and mined some of the text:
Task: This assignment is intended
to gain experience with DAML+OIL, focus attention on creating instances
(content) as well as ontologies, provide additional DAML content for subsequent
experiments, and to get everyone thinking about large-scale conversion and/or
dynamic generation of DAML content.
The next step in the evolution of the
web under active development — the so-called "Semantic Web" —
involves the development of web pages whose content is explicitly represented
in specialized, XML-based formal languages.
And a w3.org e-forum post
from Dec 2001 which I have harvested and placed as a side bead.
I realize the depth at which Jim has addressed these issues. However, the meaning of the word “ontology” no longer has the meaning that a biologist would give the term.
So “content ontology” as is being struggled with here is just technical terms discussed by a community, most of whom are bright but simply without a foundation in science. In some cases, there is some appreciation of the foundational issues in mathematics and physics. In some cases one might even have some interest in popular notions of science. But for the most part, is it not correct to state, as Bernard just did, that these individuals are engineers and are not fully representative of the types of thought that is shared more broadly within the natural sciences?
Is this not a fair argument?