Ok, can you give us some pointers to documents, so we might evaluate? (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
Monica Martin wrote: (03)
> With the ongoing work of the Common Business Process Catalog folks and
> the discussions ongoing, and the release of ebXML Reg/Rep v.3.0, I think
> you will be surprised at the capabilities' potential. This is not only
> for the repository and discovery via a registry, but in what we
> understand as knowledge (and our concepts of business entities). Worth
> a look I think.
>
> Monica
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Obrst [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:06 PM
> To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Christian Fillies
> Subject: Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
>
> Monica,
>
> I agree that this is an alternative for metadata. However, you should
> also
> know that there are many metadata registries/repositories and proposals
> for
> such out there vying for attention. Is this the right one? Is there a
> right
> one? Probably, ontology repositories and these have a necessary but not
> sufficient relationship.
>
> Aside: Of course, what is metadata? To some of us, metadata is just a
> misnomer coming out of the database community (anything that is not data
> is
> metadata) and what we are really talking about is KNOWLEDGE, possibly
> (and
> preferrably) in the form of developed ontologies.
>
> Ontology registries are a bit different. In general, the metadata folks
> have
> not yet pushed into ontology territory. This is the reason for our
> distribution list and site. We hope to move these issues forward.
>
> In general, we are all "missing something" because we are not yet
> addressing
> the ontology arena. So, the real answer to your question is: "NO". In
> fact,
> NO ONE has yet addressed ontology repositories. This is what we are
> trying
> to do here. It's not a done deal. You can influence where we go.
>
> My observation is: the XML, UBL, and ebXML folks have not yet fully
> considered what they are up to semantically. Again, that is one reason
> for
> our list.
>
> Leo
>
> Monica Martin wrote:
>
> > Why don't we consider using ebXML Reg / Rep to store these ontology
> > artifacts, or am I missing something?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Smith [mailto:robsmith5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:52 AM
> > To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Christian Fillies
> > Subject: RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
> >
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > Thanks for the XML.com survey of 53 tools...what a range of options
> > today. What will the market look like in 18 months?
> >
> > A web-based ontology repository hosted on the site could help shape
> this
> > evolving market by illustrating which features of various tools are
> more
> > in demand than others (at least for this select audience...)
> >
> > I am using Semtalk (www.semtalk.com ) to support a few client's
> > requirements.
> >
> > Since Peter is developing a survey format, I will just wait for his
> > email.
> >
> > Thanks !!
> >
> > Bob Smith, Ph.D.
> > Tall Tree Labs
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leo Obrst
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:20 AM
> > To: Ontolog-forums-cim3-net
> > Subject: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
> >
> > All,
> >
> > We are considering one possibility for our site: an ontology
> repository,
> > wherein folks can register ontologies and/or build ontologies using
> > Web-enabled tools, possibly hosted at our site.
> >
> > So some questions:
> > 1) How do you feel about:
> > a) our site supporting an ontology repository?
> > b) our site supporting a Web-enabled ontology tool (for developing
> > ontologies)?
> > c) none of the above.
> >
> > 2) Which ontology tools do you use?
> > a) Can you characterize the tools: i.e., Web-enabled, ontology
> > languages supported, cost/licensing, POCs, experience, etc.
> > b) Do you know of a tool provider who might support such a public
> > effort, hosted on our site?
> >
> > 3) Which ontology languages (knowledge representation languages)
> should
> > be the standard(s) for the ontologies?
> > (Some examples: Ontolingua/KIF, Common Logic, OKBC, CycL, RDF/S,
> > DAML+OIL, OWL, etc.)
> >
> > 4) Additional Comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Leo
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________
> > Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
> > mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information
> Management/Exploitation
> > Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> > Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
> >
> > --
> > To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
> > at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
> >
> > --
> > To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
> > at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
> > --
> > To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
> > at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
> mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
> Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
> --
> To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
> at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
> --
> To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
> at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (04)
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (05)
--
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (06)
|