[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] UBL/Invoice formalization

To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:58:21 -0800
Message-id: <>
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:
>>   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/
>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/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)

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