8 ms·
Maybe I'm just a huge nerd, but this is awesome. The product I work on ends up doing a lot of work for order processing, stock management, logistics, etc. Ther
by danpalmer 5y ago
Maybe I'm just a huge nerd, but this is awesome.
The product I work on ends up doing a lot of work for order processing, stock management, logistics, etc. There is no industry standard ontology for anything. All off the shelf software works in different ways. Terminology is somewhat consistent but not at all formally defined.
The idea of being able to build software (or human processes) around a well understood ontology is great. Full software interoperability is a long way off, but building integration points is rarely the challenge when integrating, the real challenge is in adapting one way of thinking about a problem to fit someone else's entirely different model.
If this is close enough to reality then it doesn't even need lots of parties on board with "supporting" it, they could already be close enough. Having it all written down is a great next step that should enable a lot more products to enter the marketplace.
- danachow 5y agoBetween ISO, UN CEFACT/OASIS, the now irrelevant/repivoted OMG, etc it isn’t like the idea is a new one or that anything isn’t written down - there are formal standards (insert xkcd here). The incentives for widespread adoption are just not there.
- nerdponx 5y agoMaybe the problem is too much generality? An industry-specific ontology seems a lot more tractable than a general purpose ontology for all industries.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jmole 5y agoAnd cost - most standards organizations charge money for implementations and for training. I find it no coincidence that the most widely implemented standards are the ones that you can learn about and implement for free.