Adam, (01)
I totally agree with you in the case of our approach in the NHIN-RFI response. (02)
The statement I cited, though, isn't associated with our approach or
recommendation, but is the first line under the heading "What is an
Ontology?" -- I assume, we are attempting, there, to explain to the
audience (who may, or may not be totally conversant with the nuances)
what ontologies are all about. (03)
Cheers. -ppy
-- (04)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:21:50 -0800, Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
> While ontolog's charter includes discussion of informal, as well as
> formal ontologies, I believe the case we made in the NHIN RFI was for
> benefits resulting from fully formal ontologies. When describing ontolog
> in general, it's clear that you're right to keep our charter broad, but in
> terms of specific recommendations I think we have had some consensus
> advocating the latter approach.
>
> Adam
>
> At 02:57 PM 1/20/2005, Peter Yim wrote:
> >Additonal comments:
> >
> >Ref. the statement (used in our response):
> >
> > "A formalized ontology is nominally an explicit specification of
> >the conceptual understandings shared by a community of practice. ..."
> >
> >I suggest we should use, instead:
> >
> > "To the information science and technology professional, an
> >ontology is nominally an explicit specification of the conceptual
> >understandings shared by a community of practice. ..."
> >
> >Rationale:
> >
> >1. I qualified it by adding "To the information science and
> >technology professional" because, ontology may mean something quite
> >different to, say, the metaphysicists.
> >
> >2. I also took out the word "formalized", because (a) Ontolog purports
> >to deal with both formal and informal ontologies, and (b) the
> >discourse on "ontologies", even to the information scientists, has
> >(arguably) extended to cover "formal", as well as "semi-formal" and
> >"informal" ontologies.
> >
> >I just wanted to document this, as we'll quite possibly be using this
> >paragraph over-and-over again as a boiler plate in the future.
> >
> >Cheers. -ppy
> >--
> >
> >On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:03:11 -0800, Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Bob et al.,
> > >
> > > Great Job! Kudos to all who contributed to the response.
> > >
> > > I've uploaded the response to our file repository as:
> > >
> >
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/NHIN_final-ontolog-rfi-response_20050118.doc
> > >
> > > Best wishes to the team ... when the next phase of the NHIN activities
> > > come around.
> > >
> > > Thanks & regards. -ppy
> > > --
> > >
> > > Bob Smith wrote Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:58:40 -0800:
> > >
> > > > Attached is the Ontolog Community response to the RFI issues by Dr.
> > > > Brailer's Office.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
> ----------------------------
> Adam Pease
> http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|