You know I am in. Borrowing on Mike Daconta's suggestion, I'd suggest a
planning/tasking session at the beginning to develop some goals for the
collaboration, etc. Nothing bureaucratic. (01)
We've initially identified Protege because it's free, open-source itself,
pretty versatile. Unfortunately, I am not aware of concurrent ontology
development tools (though VerticalNet originally was developing such), which
would be nicer. However, independent development using Protege and perhaps an
agreement on the representation language would help. (02)
Leo (03)
"Peter P. Yim" wrote: (04)
> Wonderful! I'm in.
>
> 1. To facilitate virtual team work, I can make our (CIM3.NET) tools
> available to the community.
>
> 2. Essentially, we (CIM3) provide a basic suite of both asynchronous
> and synchronous tools, and the processes to support distributed
> community and project work. Our collaborative work environment may
> include:
>
> (a) archived email forum (with fine grain linking/access)
> (b) wiki (with fine grain linking/access)
> (c) document repository/file sharing workspace
> (d) Community of Practice (CoP) portal/website
> (e) full-text search
> (f) voice conferencing
> (g) screen/application sharing
> (h) instant messaging
> (i) real-time chat session
> (j) access control
> (k) plus customization to cater to the CoP or project team needs.
>
> 3. We are already using (a) and (e) (at least the part that allows
> search on the message archive) now. I can set up any or all of the
> above tools, if and when they may become useful to our work.
>
> 4. Yes ... I agree with Farrukh on "open-source" -- that is consistent
> with our charter (as an "open" forum, see
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2002-09/msg00001.html#nid07)
> and that of OASIS/UBL. Thank you, Farrukh, for offering the ebXML
> registry as an option too.
>
> 5. This is exciting ... as soon as we have a reasonable number of
> people (say, within the next few days) that are willing to dive in, we
> could continue the discussion on the broader base ... but then, a
> small team can focus on reaching a shared commitment and understanding
> to getting the project started. Therefore please identify yourselves.
>
> 6. Question: who has working proficiency with protégé and is willing
> to provide some working guidance/leadership there? Please indicate so.
> Based on our earlier survey, protégé is definitely a candidate
> tool/platform where we can build the ontology on.
>
> 7. That, obviously, re-opens the whole tools/platform discussion
> again. Which is great ... we now have a better, and more focused
> reason to talk about that again. (try starting a new thread, though.)
>
> Cheers,
> PPY
> --
>
> Kurt Conrad wrote Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:17:21 -0800:
> > All,
> >
> > A few weeks ago, Peter forwarded a message announcing the release of a
> > new Universal Business Language (UBL) Library (see
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2003-01/msg00022.html).
> >
> > There has been some discussion around the idea of creating an ontology
> > based on the UBL schemas. ...[snip]...
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (05)
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (06)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (07)
|