Re: [announcement] DSpace Scraper - Reloaded

From: Matthew Cockerill <matt_at_biomedcentral.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:25:19 +0100

Stefano,

My apologies - misreading on my part as a result of overzealous
mental multithreading, and not quite grasping the meaning of:
"semantic linking by field collision" or "implicit ontological
collision"

[In fact, I could still do with some clarification on what you mean
by those phrases: "ontological collision" has an impressively small
number of hits as a Google search....]

Anyway, great to hear that we're agreed (I think) on the importance
of mapping and ontological glue, to make a kind of sense of the many
overlapping ontologies that are going to be in use.
I do certainly agree with the sentiment behind your "data first" blog
posting, and can think of many examples showing the success of this
approach.

Matt

On 10 Aug 2005, at 20:34, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>
> You got me wrong.
>
> You asked "what is the best ontology" and I said "there is no such
> thing".
>
> If you asked "what is the way that we can make best use of existing
> bibliographic data for people that need it", I would have given you
> a different answer.
>
> The first question has an implicit assumption: that implicit
> ontological collision helps in semantic interoperability. I am more
> and more convinced this is a myth.
>
> The second question has the problem at heart and not a given
> solution. That's the path I like to explore.
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 10 2005 - 21:21:47 EDT