[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog] Continuing the ontology dialog [was Re: meeting to discuss MOF

To: Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kurt Conrad <conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Adcock <Michael.Adcock@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:37:00 -0700
Message-id: <3D12671C.9E76C1C1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Leo,    (01)

Thank you for keeping me in the loop.    (02)

I've had a rather encouraging phone conversation last week with Kurt Conrad 
(who's also on the UBL
TC; he was also on the original XML working group previously.) He is very 
supportive of the
continuation of the [ontolog] discussion list, outside of UBL. In fact, Kurt 
says he will work on
drafting a charter for the new list, and will help get people (whom he is 
already in contact with
that has expressed interest in an endeavor of this sort) to join in, once we 
are up.    (03)

I have also received a note from Mike Adcock, indicating his interest to 
continue in the
conversation on ontologies, particularly in relations to the ebXML Core 
Component harmonization
work he and Sue Probert are working on. See, also, the few postings dated 
6/13/02 at
http://ubl.cim3.org/lists/ubl-ontolog/0206/dates.html    (04)

I am in the middle of project crunch that is requiring my undivided attention 
right now. Once I get
out of that (in a week or so), I will be able to get back onto setting up the 
infrastructure to get
the renewed [ontolog] forum going.    (05)

--    (06)

Leo Obrst wrote Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:39:02 -0400:    (07)

> Hi, Evan,
> Yes, I cannot attend the f2f, though I would like to, which is why I
> originally pushed Hendler for the East Coast (with MITRE support) ...
> ...[snip]...
> It might be useful for some cross-discipline liaison to happen (within
> OASIS/DISA, OMG, W3C, and across our activities and standards groups):
> we broached this with Jon Bosak (chair of the UBL group) at the recent
> X12/UBL conference in Minneapolis, though Jon was hesitant.
> Peter and I pretty much concluded that the UBL group was not ready to
> factor in ontologies and ontological engineering into their mix, since
> they had enough to chew on. So their commitment is pretty much to XML
> Schema/XML, though we tried to indicate some of the limitations of that.
> We did succeed in getting them to understand that UML and ontology
> languages (RDF/S, DAML+OIL, OWL) offered them more of what they really
> needed, i.e., rich semantic languages, and introduced a few to the
> Stanford Medical Informatics Lab's Protege ontology
> development/management tool ...[snip]...
> As an ontologist/semanticist and firm believer in KR/semantic ontology
> approaches, I of course support UML (especially now, when over the
> course of the past couple years, there have been attempts to formalize
> its semantics, the development of OCL, etc., and the evolution of the
> MOF, etc.)
> Best,
> Leo
> ps. ...[snip]...
> ===
> Evan Wallace wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Are you interested in this issue?  I see that you are not coming to
> > the Stanford F2F.  How about the OMG meeting?  I'd welcome more WebOnt
> > participation there.  My experience/background is OO/info modeling
> > and not KR/logic.
> >
> > -Evan
> --    (08)

An archive of the [ubl-ontolog] postings can be found
at http://ubl.cim3.org/lists/ubl-ontolog/    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontolog] Continuing the ontology dialog [was Re: meeting to discuss MOF2, UML?, and the semantic web], Peter P. Yim <=