| Question asked
|
In the motivating example presented in the … In the motivating example presented in the introduction regarding a money accepted by a slot machine, it is claimed: "New concepts have to be developed: 'coins excluding the new 50p', 'coins that are not too worn to be accepted by this particular machine', 'foreign coins that will fool this machine', etc." This last example, one of discovering what foreign coins can be used in the machine strikes me as an odd one for motivating ontology repair. Might it be misleading to imply that a good outcome is one which subverts the intent (not to mention the *law*) of the thing being used? If a repair can be made to an ontology that appears to satisfy all constraints by is in some sense objectively wrong (against the intention of the system), is this a good thing? Does this "objectively wrong" issue simply fall outside the scope of such an ontology repair system, or is this a legitimate issue of how to discover ground truth regarding a prospective ontology change? h regarding a prospective ontology change?
|
