I asked a real question (https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/22374/22752) and it has been downvoted at least twice with no comments. Any suggestions as to how I can improve it to get a valid answer? Is this the wrong site?

It seems to be within the scope given this Wikipedia article on knowledge representation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning#Ontology_Engineering

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I didn't vote on the question, but I fail to see its relevance to theoretical computer science. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @sureshvenkat Have you looked at the referenced papers in the OP? What is the appropriate domain? Note that the scope of this site is really CS, not limited to the theoretical domain implied by the site name (TCS): meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/947/22752 $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ Based on what little I know of ontology, based on conversations with a friend from Ph.D. studies, I would be willing to grant in principle that ontology in any case has theoretical aspects to it, just as (and for very similar reasons that) algorithm design does. However, this won't mean that the community here has much overlap with the ontology community, or even much awareness of what's going on in it. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 14:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @BobTheBuilder The fact that broadening the scope of TCS SE was suggested on meta doesn't mean that the scope was actually broadened: the Help Center is quite clear that the scope is still theoretical CS. For what it's worth, I don't know enough about the field you're asking about to have much of an opinion about whether your question is about TCS or not (and I didn't downvote). My concern about the question was only that it seems to be purely opinion-based and one person's informed opinion is no more or less valid than another's. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @BobTheBuilder what David Richerby said. There are topics here that are considered mainstream TCS. For better or worse, discussions of ontology are not. So can you connect your question to a more mathematical perspective in some way ? In any case, while I can't speak for the community, it would seem less likely that you'll find an answer here, which is the more relevant point. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ @SureshVenkat how could I request it be migrated to a more appropriate site? Perhaps Academia.SE? $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ You just did. but since I'm on that site as well, I can say that it is unlikely to be a good fit there - that's really about the processes of academia (grad school, faculty life, tenure, and so on). Your best bet would be some place that's more AI in nature. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ @SureshVenkat I am interested in the value of ontology as a theoretical construct, or why it is not valued as a research topic in academic CS although it demonstrably useful within a specific domain of science (eg, biology, ecology). How about computer science, math, or math overflow? Linguistics.se might fit but I am interested in the CS / math perspective. $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ I guess you could try Computer Science $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ @suresh please migrate $\endgroup$ May 1, 2014 at 17:58


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .