Pat, (01)
At 11:43 AM 1/16/2004 -0500, Patrick Cassidy wrote: (02)
> Thanks to Adam for the comments. There are a few issues
>that I would like to pursue in separate threads. For the
>moment I would like to be sure that we all agree
>on the starting ontology to which the Invoices module
>will be appended. Adam's note indicates that he thinks
>that the mid-level ontology should be included. That's
>fine. Should be include the whole thing? (03)
Think of all upper level files like a dictionary. One needn't use all the
words in a dictionary just because it's available as a resource. We'll be
creating new UBL files, which will be separate from the upper level files. (04)
> I would also like to fix on the version of merge.txt
>that will be used. Peter suggests 1.566 (on the cim3 site).
>The line numbers Adam quoted do not match exactly with
>the numbers in 1.566 (they are close, so there must be
>only a little difference). Should we use 1.566, or
>does Adam have a different file that he prefers? (05)
Sorry about the version issue. I think I have the correct version loaded now. (06)
> I also downloaded the latest version of merge.txt,
>but I don't know what version number that is. That
>differs slightly from both 1.566 and the one Adam quoted. (07)
The latest version, which Teknowledge has put under GNU license and added
their copyright to, (which I don't believe they can since IEEE owns the
copyright), has been modified from 1.566. We should stick with 1.566
I believe. (08)
> Can we put the mid-level ontology on cim3 also, or is
>there a restriction that prevents that? (From a quick
>look at the legalese included it looks like we can). (09)
The version I have is GNU Public License. I'll post it. Note that
Teknowledge has released another version which they've restricted to
non-commercial use only, which I think is a restriction that makes the
later version inappropriate for this effort. (010)
> When we fix on the files to use I will run the
>import again to see if there are import problems in
>the merge.txt we will use or in the mid-level
>ontology. Then I will suggest additional content to beef up
>the Invoice elements.
> Glad we are moving forward with content. (011)
Sounds good. (012)
Adam (013)
> Pat
>
>==================
>
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>Folks,
>> Here are my answers for Pat.
>>Here are the existing terms I've identified already in SUMO or a domain
>>ontology, with the relevant line number from the file. As far as I can
>>see, all the term additions suggested by Pat are not necessary. Below,
>>Merge.txt is SUMO.
>>. . .
>
>--
>=============================================
>Patrick Cassidy
>
>MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
>735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
>Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
>internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>=============================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
>mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|