Difference (from revision 62 to 63)

Changed: 216c216

ArturoSanchez: Question for Michael Gruninger: why limit the formalisms used to express semantics to Model Theory (slide 9)? {nid 1DPJ}
ArturoSanchez: Question for MichaelGruninger: why limit the formalisms used to express semantics to Model Theory (slide 9)? {nid 1DPJ}

Changed: 224c224,228

AnnWrightson: I'm uncomfortable with the use of "structured" to apparently mean "logically clean". Surely these are different notions? An "unstructured" ontology in the expression-sense stated in slide 11 could have in fact a considerable amount of structure in the usual sense of the word (eg follow a component-assembly-structure defined in EXPRESS) [--ed. which MichaelGruninger did answer to verbally. Refer to the audio archive.] {nid 1DPL}
AnnWrightson: I'm uncomfortable with the use of "structured" to apparently mean "logically clean".
Surely these are different notions? An "unstructured" ontology in the expression-sense
stated in slide 11 could have in fact a considerable amount of structure in the usual sense
of the word (eg follow a component-assembly-structure defined in EXPRESS)
[--ed. which MichaelGruninger did answer to verbally. Refer to the audio archive.] {nid 1DPL}

Changed: 228c232,234

JohnGraybeal: For MichaelGruninger: The characterization of WordNet during slide 11 (Level of Structure) lost me a little, I'd like to hear that again. (An example table, showing how a number of ontologies fits into these various dimensions, would be quite helpful.) {nid 1DPM}
JohnGraybeal: For MichaelGruninger: The characterization of WordNet during slide 11 (Level of Structure)
lost me a little, I'd like to hear that again. (An example table, showing how a number of
ontologies fits into these various dimensions, would be quite helpful.) {nid 1DPM}

Changed: 232c238,239

RexBrooks: For MichaelGruninger: I would also like to have some examples of descriptive v. prescriptive ontologies, and how we can capture that in metadata, to avoid inadvertent misuse. {nid 1DPN}
RexBrooks: For MichaelGruninger: I would also like to have some examples of descriptive v. prescriptive
ontologies, and how we can capture that in metadata, to avoid inadvertent misuse. {nid 1DPN}

Changed: 236c243,246

JohnGraybeal: For MichaelGruninger: On slide 17, is it really the Design Methodology that you care about, or the validation/review characteristics of the result? The important thing would seem to be whether an ontology has been established as consistent or conformant along various axes, not how it got to that state. {nid 1DPO}
JohnGraybeal: For MichaelGruninger: On slide 17, is it really the Design Methodology that you care about,
or the validation/review characteristics of the result? The important thing would seem to be
whether an ontology has been established as consistent or conformant along various axes,
not how it got to that state. {nid 1DPO}

Changed: 240c250,251

ToddSchneider: In general we should assume we will not know all of the 'items' that will need to be represented in the metadata associated with an artifact and design for this. {nid 1DPP}
ToddSchneider: In general we should assume we will not know all of the 'items' that will need to be
represented in the metadata associated with an artifact and design for this. {nid 1DPP}

Changed: 244c255,257

ArturoSanchez: For JohnGraybeal: see http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Population_Session and search for Population-spreadsheet, various ontologies where mapped to the model during the summit {nid 1DPQ}
ArturoSanchez: For JohnGraybeal: see http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Population_Session
and search for Population-spreadsheet, various ontologies where mapped to the model
during the summit {nid 1DPQ}

Changed: 248c261,262

KenBaclawski: With one of my students, I have evaluated 40 large ontologies using the Ontology Summit 2007 Framework Dimensions. I have written up some conclusions about the results and could present them at some point. {nid 1DPR}
ArturoSanchez: For MichaelGruninger and PeterHaase: how would you characterize OMV according to the
OntologySummit2007 model? {nid 1DPT}

Changed: 252c266,267

RexBrooks: For PeterHaase: Small note on "Party," don't you think we need a category for "Agent" which can be a subtype of either "Organisation" or "person," as well as a "party" in its own right, e.g. a spider/webcrawler bot? {nid 1DPS}
JohnGraybeal: For ArturoSanchez: This is brilliant, though the copy I found is largely empty.
Where can I find one that integrates all the results? {nid 1DPU}

Changed: 256c271

ArturoSanchez: For MichaelGruninger and PeterHaase: how would you characterize OMV according to the Summit2007 model? {nid 1DPT}
ArturoSanchez: For JohnGraybeal: if you look under "Breakout Group Task:" you will find the various results from all the groups. In particular, the link to the document about WordNet is http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/workshop/Population-spreadsheet_WordNet-as-ontology_20070423b.doc {nid 1DPX}

Changed: 260c275,279

JohnGraybeal: For ArturoSanchez: This is brilliant, though the copy I found is largely empty. Where can I find one that integrates all the results? {nid 1DPU}
PeterYim (added subsequently): to JohnGraybeal: you can look under
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique_Session#nid108F
... check out the various breakout groups' work products as well as
OlivierBodenreider's "Framework Dimensions Sorted" piece
at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique_Session#nid10PD {nid 1DQI}

Changed: 264c283,285

PeterHaase: to RexBrooks: I believe the concept Party captures what you propose as Agent {nid 1DPV}
KenBaclawski: With one of my students, I have evaluated 40 large ontologies using the OntologySummit2007
Framework Dimensions. I have written up some conclusions about the results and could
present them at some point. {nid 1DPR}

Changed: 268c289

PeterHaase: we did not want to call it agent as the term is so overloaded {nid 1DPW}
PeterHaase: to RexBrooks: I believe the concept Party captures what you propose as Agent {nid 1DPV}

Changed: 272c293,295

ArturoSanchez: For JohnGraybeal: if you look under "Breakout Group Task:" you will find the various results from all the groups. In particular, the link to the document about WordNet is http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/workshop/Population-spreadsheet_WordNet-as-ontology_20070423b.doc {nid 1DPX}
RexBrooks: For PeterHaase: Small note on "Party," don't you think we need a category for "Agent"
which can be a subtype of either "Organisation" or "person," as well as a "party" in its
own right, e.g. a spider/webcrawler bot? {nid 1DPS}

Changed: 276c299

MalaMehrotra: For NatashaNoy: Are the mappings being stored as metadata? Slide 5. {nid 1DPY}
PeterHaase: we did not want to call it agent as the term is so overloaded {nid 1DPW}

Changed: 280c303

NatashaNoy: For MalaMehrotra: Yes, mappings are also metadata (and have the same issues, such as versioning, contributions from communities, etc.) {nid 1DPZ}
RexBrooks: Thanks PeterHaase. It may require a qualifier or another term to be able to specify the Party as some kind of software agent v. an organisation or person. I will need to take a good look at OMV. {nid 1DQ1}

Changed: 284c307

MalaMehrotra: For NatashaNoy: SO what language - or what level of expressivity - are you all requiring in the BioPortal for mappings? {nid 1DQ0}
MalaMehrotra: For NatashaNoy: Are the mappings being stored as metadata? Slide 5. {nid 1DPY}

Changed: 288c311

RexBrooks: Thanks PeterHaase. It may require a qualifier or another term to be able to specify the Party as some kind of software agent v. an organisation or person. I will need to take a good look at OMV. {nid 1DQ1}
NatashaNoy: For MalaMehrotra: Yes, mappings are also metadata (and have the same issues, such as versioning, contributions from communities, etc.) {nid 1DPZ}

Changed: 292c315

RexBrooks: For PeterHaase: Would OMV be capable of being used as a "Classification Scheme" in ebXML RIM, if you happen to know? {nid 1DQ2}
MalaMehrotra: For NatashaNoy: SO what language - or what level of expressivity - are you all requiring in the BioPortal for mappings? {nid 1DQ0}

Changed: 304c327

PeterHaase: to Rex: The OMV API for the registry that I mentioned is actually an "OMV Specialized ebXML Registry" {nid 1DQ5}
JohnGraybeal: Awesome lineup, PeterYim. Must leave now, will catch up later. {nid 1DQ7}

Changed: 308c331

PeterHaase: so we used the extension mechanisms of ebXML {nid 1DQ6}
ToddSchneider: For PeterHaase: Does OMV support a distributed structure (e.g. P2P)? {nid 1DQ8}

Changed: 312c335

JohnGraybeal: Awesome lineup, PeterYim. Must leave now, will catch up later. {nid 1DQ7}
RexBrooks: For PeterHaase: Would OMV be capable of being used as a "Classification Scheme" in ebXML RIM, if you happen to know? {nid 1DQ2}

Changed: 316c339

ToddSchneider: For PeterHaase: Does OMV support a distributed structure (e.g. P2P)? {nid 1DQ8}
PeterHaase: to Rex: The OMV API for the registry that I mentioned is actually an "OMV Specialized ebXML Registry" {nid 1DQ5}

Added: 319a343,346

PeterHaase: so we used the extension mechanisms of ebXML {nid 1DQ6}
}}}

{{{

Changed: 352,356c379

RexBrooks: To all panelists: This is really terrrific as the groups I work with head directly into building registry-repositories and ontologies. {nid 1DQH}
}}}

{{{
RexBrooks: Thanks All!!! {nid 1DQI}
RexBrooks: To all panelists: This is really terrrific as the groups I work with head directly into building registry-repositories and ontologies. Thanks All! {nid 1DQH}