[riku_iki]

> At the same time I think it's important to have explicit dissent (differing world views) and give both a room to grow, rather than trying to create the "one true" view on the world.

you can embed this into ontology itself, e.g. create classes/entities: InPeterView, InMaryView etc.

[hobofan]

Yes, I am very aware of that. However, realistically, Party1 with WorlView1 will be in charge of maintaining WorldView1 in their ontology document, and it is better to leave Party2 to maintain their WorldView2 in their own separate ontology document.

Of course sometimes there is a need to reconcile both world views, and there have been swaths of literature being written about ontology alignment. Optimally the parties would also share the things that they agree on and co-maintain them in separate ontology documents, though in practice this doesn't happen nowadays due to lack in ontology engineering tooling.

[riku_iki]

> co-maintain them in separate ontology documents, though in practice this doesn't happen nowadays due to lack in ontology engineering tooling.

there are multiple efforts to build some core standard ontologies (e.g. schema.org) which then can be used as common vocabulary.

[hobofan]

And for good reason they don't gain widespread adoption. E.g. schema.org is barely used outside of making your website better scrapeable for Google - it is an (indirect) Google project after all.

The only "core" ontologies that have really found adoption over the decades are the ones that everyone is forced to use as they are baked into the standards (RDF/RDFS), and Dublin Core for metadata (where only 5 of the ~100 terms are commonly used).

[riku_iki]

it could be because all that rdf stuff didn't get strong adaptation, so no interest to build common core ontologies outside specific niches.