Re: [ontolog-forum] Proceedings of 2003.03.20 Conference Call

[MDaconta@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 3/20/2003 5:33:08 PM US Mountain Standard Time, apease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>   Sorry my participation has been limited recently.  I noticed one item on 
> the meeting notes was "Create an ontology so that software agents can carry 
> out a UBL transaction in an automated fashion."  I should mention that the 
> DAML-Services effort has been trying to do just that.  One problem is that 
> DAML doesn't have rules (yet) so the degree of semantic detail is 
> limited.  We also felt that the effort would benefit from having the 
> support of a more general ontology.  We've published a version that covers 
> the content of DAML-S but in KIF, and consistent with our Suggested Upper 
> Merged Ontology.  You can find it at 
> <http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/ServiceOntology.kif>.  The SUMO, 
> Financial Ontology and Quality of Service ontologies that it depends on are 
> available at <http://ontology.teknowledge.com>. I hope folks will consider 
> reusing this content.


Hi Adam,

I fully agree that we should look to reuse previous work in this area.
In regards to the difficulties of an ontology to support automated transactions,
you may have noticed the second suggestion before attempting that was
a more modest proposal to create an ontology that would assist an 
agent in validating the correctness of an Invoice/order combination.  I 
believe that is a more achievable initial goal.

Best wishes,

 - Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
www.daconta.net