the 1:30 start is best for my schedule (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Conrad [SMTP:conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:40 AM
> To: Ontolog Forum
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] UBL Project Status / Proposed Telecon
>
> All,
>
> Wow! 44 postings in 4 days. 15 different people have posted to the
> discussion and another three or four have jointed the forum.
>
> I think that we have a viable project (assuming that all us cats can
> be herded effectively).
>
> We are still officially in the planning phase, but a number of
> conversations have already gotten traction (a semi-detailed analysis
> follows). Not too surprising, the conversation has been heavily
> focused on tools and technologies.
>
> My first reaction is to employ a conquer and divide strategy:
>
> * Start a thread / team to focus on goals and objectives.
>
> * Start a thread / team to focus on process and project management.
>
> * Let the conversations on tools and modeling issues continue at
> their own pace, but try to add a bit more rigor. For each technology
> option, provide:
> * Name of the Technology
> * Functional Description
> * Features
> * Strengths
> * Weaknesses
> * Source
> * Licensing
>
> * Let the other topics shake out, as appropriate.
>
>
> A more traditional development model would start with requirements
> definition, but I don> '> t think that the other topics could be
> effectively tabled, at this time. Also, what we choose to accomplish
> is likely to be what can be achieved by leveraging established
> technologies and process. Therefore, I expect that the inventory of
> tools and techniques to be a critical input to the scoping and
> requirements definition decisions that we need to make.
>
> Many of the potential requirements for this project are implicit in
> the technical descriptions that have been provided. Accordingly, for
> the next week or so, I suggest that we work both ends towards the middle.
>
> I also propose that we hold a kickoff teleconference relatively soon,
> preferably Wednesday, March 12th. At this time, two time-slots are
> available: 10:30-12:00 PST (1:30-3:00 EST) or 1:00-2:30 PST
> (4:00-5:30 EST).
>
> How many of you could attend a telecon next Wednesday? Which time
> would be prefable?
>
> /s/ kwc 2003.03.06 23:33
>
>
>
> QUICK ANALYSIS OF DISCUSSION TO DATE:
>
>
> Goals
>
> * Identify appropriate metrics to measure and capture those measures
> during this project (as a starting point to developing guidance).
> [Norma Slattery]
>
> * Open Source [Farrukh Najmi, Mike Daconta, Duane Nickull]
>
> * Concurrent ontology development tools [Leo Obrst]
>
> * Parallel development of a real-life public-domain APPLICATION that
> uses the ontology in a non-trivial way to illustrate the reasoning
> capacity that the ontology is intended to provide (select one which
> is freely available or build one) [Patrick Cassidy]
>
> * Learn about and refine our ontology building skills [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Craft an ontology suitable for adoption by the UBL committee, which
> presumes that acceptance equates to accurate modeling of the domain
> [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Apply medical ontologies using ebXML Registry [Farrukh Najmi]
>
> * Role: Volunteer to develop use cases [Mike Daconta]
>
>
>
> Process and Project Management
>
> * Collaborative work environment options [Peter Yim]
>
> * Need: Someone who has working proficiency with Protégé and is
> willing to provide some working guidance/leadership [Peter Yim]
> ** Response: I have a working proficiency and am willing to provide
> Protégé guidance as best as I can. Start by reviewing
>
>http://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101.html
> [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Planning/tasking session at the beginning to develop some goals for >
> the collaboration, etc. [Leo Obrst]
>
> * Agreement on a firm set of rules as to how controversies are to be
> decided, and a set of deadlines as to when particular phases of the
> effort should be completed [Patrick Cassidy]
>
> * Role: UBL consultant to the project [Tim McGrath]
>
> * Develop some concrete goals for the utility of the ontology beyond
> the development of an accurate model [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Consider following the simple ontology development simple process
> outlined in the ontology101.html document [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Define some use-cases for the ontology [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Translation/refinement of UBL models [Mike Daconta, Dean Black,
> Patrick Cassidy, Leo Obrst]
>
> * Guarino and Welty's OntoClean methodology (now merged with
> Methontology) [Leo Obrst]
>
> * NexistWiki [Jack Park]
>
>
>
> Opportunities & Threats
>
> * An independent UBL ontology effort could either help normalize
> other UBL-related efforts (OAG, UCC/EAN, PIDX, RosettaNet, etc.) or
> could be seen as repetitive [John Yunker]
>
> * Drive the requirements and features of ebXML Registry V4 [Farrukh Najmi]
>
>
>
> Technology Options
>
> * Use an ebXML Registry as an Ontology/Terminology Server (extend /
> include V4 ontology support) [Farrukh Najmi, Mike Daconta, Duane
> Nickull, Leo Obrst, John Yunker]
>
> * Protégé [Peter Yim, Leo Obrst]
>
> * Agreed-upon representation language [Leo Obrst]
>
> * Use MS Enterprise Architect and UML-ORM tools to extend the core
> documents and related schema [Bob Smith]
>
> * Protégé with OntoViz plugin, using RDF/S as the representation
> language [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Content management system [Farrukh Najmi]
>
> * OWL [Farrukh Najmi]
>
> * Open-ended ontology inference engine [Farrukh Najmi]
>
> * Various representation languages (UML, XML [DTDs and Schemas]),
> OKBC knowledge model, KIF, Common Logic) [Leo Obrst]
>
> * Prolog engine (XSB, Amzi!, binProlog) [Leo Obrst]
>
> * OntologyWorks tool [Leo Obrst]
> * FLORA language plug in for Protégé [Leo Obrst]
>
> * Java + Prolog [Leo Obrst]
>
> * JESS (Java Expert System Shell based on CLIPS) [Leo Obrst]
>
> * IODE from OntologyWorks [Michael Uschold]
>
> * Ontolingua (translation from KIF to Prolog) [Leo Obrst]
>
> * ISO-IEC-11179 classification standard [Leo Obrst]
>
>
>
> Application Models
>
> * Deductive database (logic programming + relational database, so
> that you get inference and set at a time operations from a RDB) [Leo
> Obrst]
>
>
>
> Issues
>
> * Formalization model(s) [Mike Daconta]
>
> * Common definition of Ontology (e.g., vs Taxonomy)
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Conrad
> 2994 Salem Dr. 408-247-0454
> Santa Clara, CA 95051-5502 408-247-0457 (data/fax)
> http://www.SagebrushGroup.com mailto:conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (02)
|