[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] [UBL-Ontology] Picking our Methodolgy

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:19:45 -0800
Message-id: <3E7A84D1.2050809@xxxxxxxxxxx>
During our conference call today, the issue of approach (or 
methodology) was discussed: Ref. 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Conference_Call_2003-03-20#nid083    (01)

7a. MikeDaconta suggested that we go with the Noy and McGuinness' 
[Ontology 101] approach and get a volunteer to put up a methodology 
page on the Wiki.    (02)

7c. Consider also LeoObrst's suggestion of the Guarino & Welty 
OntoClean/Methontology methodology.    (03)

7d. MikeDaconta suggested we get the community to read up, and then 
put the ontology building process to a vote on the forum. The group 
agreed that we should get this done by next Wednesday 3/26/03 (one day 
prior to the next conference call).    (04)

8. PeterYim suggested that we can possibly develop the ontology on 
multiple tools and should not have to be confined to selecting just a 
single tool (or method) if there is enough interest and resources. 
Since this is an open and organic process, everyone should just feel 
free to push for whatever they are passionate about, as long as we 
have a shared commitment to a common goal. -- the group agreed.    (05)

10. BoNewman suggested we could start the ontology in Wiki. The group 
agreed that general concepts could be captured in Wiki, at least 
initially. To this, PeterYim pointed out that we are chartered to 
explore BOTH formal and informal ontologies anyway.
//    (06)

In particular, the meeting suggested that:    (07)

A. We ask if someone can provide pointers and links to 
material/resource so that everyone can learn a little more on the 
Guarino & Welty OntoClean/Methontology methodology. [Leo?, Nicola?, 
anyone?]    (08)

B. Please provide further inputs, comments, suggestions on this 
subject through posting to the forum. Consider providing:    (09)

(a) more alternatives (or hybrid) methodologies we might choose from.    (010)

(b) arguments in support of (or against) one methodology or another    (011)

(c) arguments for or against picking "one" as opposed to "multiple" 
methodologies    (012)

(d) any other comments, questions, suggestions, ... etc.    (013)

C. By Wednesday 3.26.03 noon PST, will the original proposers please 
draw up a one line statement that clearly states his/her final 
proposal. Write it so that it is clear and concise, so that the 
community can vote on it (if need be).    (014)

D. We might use the rest of the day to clarify on the proposals and 
get people to second the proposals. I like PatCassidy's 2 seconds (Ref 
pt. (1) under 
I may not agree with doing away with Robert's Rules, though -- we can 
take that up another time*). We then put the proposals up for a vote 
(if we don't have a consensus) by Thursday 3.27.03 morning, prior to 
our regular conference call. If the discussions tend towards a 
consensus, the moderator (one of our co-conveners) may choose to 
solicit responses only from people who are opposed to a certain 
proposal, and default to acceptance should there be very few opposing 
votes.    (015)

[* for now, we default to the OASIS process (see 
http://oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml), which is mainly a 
slightly modified Robert's Rule of Order.]    (016)

E. We will allow 5 days (see 
http://oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#mail) for votes to come 
back in, via email, from (hopefully) all voting members (those who 
indicated that you are joining the [ontolog-forum] as "active" members 
-- by the way, if you want to change your membership status (between 
"active" and "observer", please email me ASAP.)    (017)

F. We will tally, and should have established a position, as a team, 
by the time of our conference call the following week (Thu 4.3.03 
10:30am PST).    (018)

Time is tight ... but that's what is going to allow us to move forward 
quickly ... hope the pace is OK for everyone (say so if you don't feel 
comfortable with it.)    (019)

PPY    (020)

P.S. I am using the term "methodology" here (and sometimes 
interchangeably with the term "approach") when referring to "HOW" we 
are going to develop the ontology. The term "process" shall be used 
for things like "how often do we meet", "who gets to vote", "do we 
transact business over the forum or over the meetings", "what 
constitutes quorum", ... etc.    (021)

[MikeDaconta, along that line, I modified some parts of your minutes 
... hope that's OK with you.  -ppy]    (022)

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    (023)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>