Further ... (01)
How about using the wiki more as a tool to develop the "informal
ontology" among the community, as a precursor to the eventual
We can use the wiki to help capture input, on particularly crucial or
problematic concepts (not meant to be exhaustive or complete) from
any/multiple participants on: (03)
(a) related concepts (04)
(b) pertinent axioms (05)
(c) drafts (and multiple proposals) to statements and documentation (06)
It provides the "shared display" that may help bring convergence
(after a possible divergent start). (07)
... more thoughts? (08)
Peter P. Yim wrote Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:52:40 -0700:
> I'm impressed with your browser. It's wonderful.
> I wasn't able to open your <sumo-1.36classes-Chinese.pdf> file ...
> (maybe because I don't have a Chinese-capable acrobat reader.)
> Kurt and I have already established that we shouldn't use the wiki to
> capture/represent any hierarchical structures; and decided that we
> should leverage its capabilities in:
> (a) hyperlinking, and
> (b) ease-of-collaborative-editing
> Looks like, your browser is doing a much better job with (a). Let us go
> back to the drawing board and see/justify if and how we should employ
> the wiki to advance our cause. ... Comments, suggestions solicited
> (especially from those who advocated its use earlier.)
> -- (010)
> Adam Pease wrote Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:43:11 -0700:
>> We'll ultimately need the functionality of an ontology browser. Why
>> not run an existing browser and then we'll have hyperlinked listings
>> of axioms and a hierarchy view already? You can get a free web-based
>> browser that's easy to install from
>> You can see it running live at <http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/>.
>> That browser also addresses the multiple language presentation issue.
>> It already handles a German presentation. There's a Chinese version
>> of the SUMO hierarchy on line at
>> As far as the naming convention, SUMO uses InterCaps.
> --- (011)
>> At 11:41 PM 7/14/2003 -0700, Kurt Conrad wrote:
>>> Peter and I set up the Invoice concept Wiki page. It can be found at
>>> The approach that we took was to first consolidate the various
>>> definitions of Invoice that have been passed around. Once we have
>>> settled on the "official" Ontolog definition for invoice, we expect
>>> that the material copied from forum postings can be removed.
>>> We thought about trying to reflect some sort of structure (e.g.,
>>> class hierarchy) either on the concept page or across concept pages.
>>> This proved to be problematic for a number of reasons. As a result,
>>> the Wiki page includes a Related Concepts section, but the concepts
>>> are only listed without any regard to the ways that they are related.
>>> As we populated the Related Concepts section with examples, we
>>> identified a number of issues which should be addressed by the team
>>> in the near term. The most critical ones are:
>>> 1) Determining the naming conventions that we will use for the
>>> concepts. A number of alternatives are listed on the Wiki page.
>>> 2) Ensuring that the concepts that we are defining map cleanly to the
>>> concepts identified by the UBL committee. Toward this end, I
>>> populated the Related Concepts section with the concepts listed in
>>> the appropriate version 0.7 analysis spreadsheet.
>>> A Specifications has also been provided. Although it isn't populated
>>> at this time, we expect it to contain (or link) to matching
>>> representations (Protoge, KIF, XML Schema, etc.).
>>> Please review this page with an eye to using the resulting page
>>> structure as a model for "all" concept pages.
>>> /s/ kwc 2003.07.14 23:41
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 (013)