Enough is enough

The title of this post might be explained by having two meetings widely dislocated. In the morning a meeting just around the corner (7 minutes cycling) and in the afternoon a meeting in Amsterdam (2 hours by train). The meeting in the morning was floating ideas and hoping somebody else would catch them. The meeting in the afternoon was more business like: what do we have, how do we proceed, etc.

One of the comments tabled in the afternoon meeting can be paraphrased as follows: "Here is a review of 18 tools about ontology learning, can we be original here?". My immediate answer: "What did the 18th add?". [Just in case you don't know what "ontology learning" is, and how far the state-of-the-art has advanced, read the review :-).]

A funny idea: how many papers (systems, etc.) does it take to put a subject to rest and consider it solved? Quality (and similar measures like usability, reproducability, etc.) rules I think, when adding to quantity it obviously becomes more difficult to distinguish oneself. When is enough enough and move on?