| Todd and all, I think we need to settle on rationale and scope. I am very much in favor of Frank's description:
" initially aim at
- rather short, glossary-like definitions for look-up purposes
('short' = guessing an initial target of around 10 lines/500 words)
- augmented with references to detailed literature"
"* rationale
- more detailed information is given in many pieces of diverse literature
- high utility
* for "newcomers" as a starting point/hub of a general first understanding of a notion
* for debates as a reference point for determining misunderstanding
* in both cases with re-direction to different contexts for more details
- easier to achieve than more extensive versions"
And for a newcomer it would be valuable to include terms that are specific to the applied ontology community, even if they are not used ambiguously.
Fabian
On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote: Fabian,
> The second is the degree of completeness of the list.
> As I've noted on the current wiki page there are terms
> whose interpretation and domain is fairly well fixed
> (e.g., OWL) and shouldn't concern us at this beginning
> phase. Whether there should be a 'complete' list or the
> completeness of the list is something all IAOA members
> should agree on.
>
> I don't understand the argument. Why would you want to exclude a
> term just because its interpretation is well understood or its
> interpretation is fixed? In my opinion the inclusion criterion
> should be: Is the term part of the core terminology of applied
> ontology? If the answer is "yes", the term should be included. And
> in my opinion OWL meets that criterion.
>
--->>> The initial impetus for developing a list of terms was
use/abuse of certain terms across various domains during
this summer's IAOA Summer School.
The intent was not to provide an all inclusive list, though
that might be nice, but to focus on the terms from the domains
addressed during the summer school (and represented in the
diagram on the wiki page) that were used with multiple
interpretations.
My presumption is that these domains are 'core' to applied
ontology and provide the basis for other areas or domains
that are or may be considered important (e.g., semantic web).
Of course what I'd really prefer is an ontology for the domain
of applied ontology. But I thought we might first agree on
some terms, or at least identify 'core' terms, their applicable
domains and respective interpretations therein, allowing for
disagreements. Again, starting with those that seem to have
multiple interpretations (e.g., kind, type, class, property, etc.).
Todd
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-education/
> Committee File-share: http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/work/Committee/Education/
> Committee Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?IaoaEducation
> Activities Blog: http://iaoa-activities.blogspot.com/ ...(coming!)
> To join: please email committee chair or to: info @ iaoa.org
> IAOA website: http://iaoa.org
|