Metholodology to be used to build our first UBL-Ontology    (8WB)

Candidates    (8WC)

Adopted Methodology    (8WI)

Representations of Choice    (8XF)

Tools of Choice    (8XH)

Elaboration on the Various Candidate Approaches    (8XJ)

The "Nuts and Bolts" process    (8XK)

Our final candidate 8-step Approach    (8XV)

" ... Over the course of our last two telecons, we've raised some issues (and satisfied ourselves with some discussion), but we want to open these issues up to discussion among the larger membership.    (8XX)

1) Ontology Methodology    (8XY)

We are going to follow steps 1-5 in the Noy & McGuinness Ontology 101 methodology. Why? Because it is relatively simple and we are trying to adopt a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupd) meta-methodology. The fused Methontology-OntoClean methodology is more complicated, because it tries to create an engineering discipline for the development of ontologies, an ontological engineering, borrowing from the more evolved software engineering/development lifecycle methodologies (Methontology) and from formal ontology analysis (OntoClean).    (8XZ)

We are going to follow steps 1-5 only (and really, part of 5) because these are generic and make no assumptions about knowledge representation/ontology language. When you talk about "slot" and "facet", in particular, you are oriented toward a "frame-based" KR language, and we didn't want to force that perspective yet. [Aside: however, when we talk about KR languages and prospective tools based on those languages, we will possibly re-introduce these frame notions -- so stay tuned!]    (8Y0)

 (    Step 6. Define the facets of the slots   )
 (    Step 7. Create instances                 )    (8Y6)

I'll reword the above to be the following, and probably we can adopt all seven steps with this rewording (and I'll add a distinct step 8, even though this step is partially included in steps 4-7, about which we'll have more discussion later):    (8Y7)

Question: are these revised 8 steps reasonable to folks? ... "    (8YG)

Choice of Upper Ontology    (8YH)

" ... 2) Upper Ontology/ies    (8YJ)

It is much easier to develop domain ontologies (domain defined as a subject area or area of knowledge, e.g., business-to-business e-commerce) when these can use upper ontologies. In our experience, developing domain ontologies without upper ontologies causes you to spend a good portion of your time creating what should be in an upper ontology (if you had one), i.e., time, space, part-hood, abstract vs. concrete, organization, process, state, task, product, location, role, contiguity, synchronization, dependency, physical property, scalar measures, unit of measure, etc.    (8YK)

So it is useful at the beginning of the process in developing domain ontologies to have and use a set of upper ontologies. SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology) has been offered as one candidate by Adam Pease. He has mapped one of our targeted areas of focus (Invoicing) to the SUMO -- a very useful exercise.    (8YL)

This is an issue we need to address: let's pull in an Upper Ontology or set of upper ontologies, so we don't spin our wheels re-inventing stuff that may already be available. Which ones? Well, currently there are a few out there. SUMO, Upper Cyc, and some others probably not as extensive. I will try to dig up a summary.    (8YM)

Leo ... "    (8YN)

"Ontology 101" Approach    (8YO)

  1.    (8YQ)
    1. Determine the domain and scope of the ontology    (8YR)
    2. Consider reusing existing ontologies    (8YS)
    3. Enumerate important terms in the ontology    (8YT)
    4. Define the classes and the class hierarchy    (8YU)
    5. Define the properties of classes—slots    (8YV)
    6. Define the facets of the slots    (8YW)
    7. Create instances    (8YX)

"OntoClean" Approach    (8Z8)

"Wiki" Approach    (8ZL)

Representation    (8ZW)