Talk:Ontology engineering

More on Methodology

The intro describes ontology engineering as a "field which studies the methods and methodologies for building ontologies". While it does mention some languages and tools, the article currently does not give much description of the actual methods for building ontologies. I'd like to see more of that here, or at least a clear other place to look for such an overview. Showeropera (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, this page urgently needs a good overview of current and historical methodologies. Can a domain expert recommend any well received review articles to help get the ball rolling here? The references are over ten years old, and I'm sure things have progressed since then.

Systems

A basic question. Systems (with associated language) are already in place. Many (most?) of these systems are decades old. None of them were either constructed or maintained with an eye to either taxonomy or ontologies. How does one overlay a layer of ontological organization on this chaos? DEddy (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry which systems are you refering to? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops... ambiguous semantics. I'm thinking "information systems" written in software. When I say "language" I mean one system will use M0101 while another system (within the same organization) will refer to a data thingame as POL-NO... both meaning the same thing, "policy number." DEddy (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Those systems use codes, M0101 or POL-NO, on a physcial level. But even two decades ago the systems where designed on a conceptual level with ER models for example. It is my understanding that ontology engineering is about designing ontologies for information systems on a conceptual level, see also Three schema approach. It is the intention here to develope new systems that are interoperatable. They are not meant to structure or restructure those old systems. The will remain a chaos, untill they eventually are replaced. I guess. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Marcel... "develop new systems that are interoperable". I hope you're wrong on this, since developing new/replacement systems is going to take decades. One place where I saw a lot of interest in ontologies was in the task of making existing silos "interoperable." Get the data out of Silo A, B & C... & combine said data in a useful manner. Obviously one of the effects of this (hardly new approach) is that it increases the life of the Silos. The working assumption (which I agree with) is that the existing silos (e.g. "legacy systems") are in place, have their constituencies, do something useful, & will NOT be replaced anytime soon.

Footnote: this particular system was put into service long before Chen/ER models came along. DEddy (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Interesting. I guess this leaves your question unanswered. Sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If ontologies do not address existing, legacy systems, what do they (ontologies) do that is useful? DEddy (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article section(s) removed

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Process Specification Language article and some external PD sources.
• In this edit some text was copy/pasted here from the ontology language article

-- Mdd (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)