ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontolog-forum] Update on SMINK/Invoices ontology

To: <cassidy@xxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Bob Smith" <robsmith5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:01:49 -0800
Message-id: <20040212181341.A065E446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Pat,    (01)

Your thought of starting with the conceptual rather than physical certainly
makes sense to me.    (02)

The long history of software development seems to focus on this sequence:
Conceptual -->Logical--> Physical then test and implement prototypes.    (03)

 Kind of reminds me of the old CoCoMo models of Boehm 1981 and SEI 1993 in
context of UML 2.0    (04)

 Thanks again,    (05)

 Bob    (06)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:09 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Update on SMINK/Invoices ontology    (07)

    I have now posted the latest versions of the KIF and Protege files
containing the combined SUMO 1.56 and Mid-Level ontologies, plus the
Invoices concepts added by Adam Pease and myself.  This version
(SMINK006) contains the concept of a "Code" as suggested for my effort by
Adam Pease, and also contains additional related concepts required for the
interpretation of a "Code" in the context of the upper ontology.    (08)

    One important consideration is whether we want to proceed with
development of concepts related to Invoices, Orders, etc. by representing
them as physical objects (pieces of paper, light pulses on a monitor,
magnetic fields on a disk, optical holes in a CD), or by first ignoring the
physical objects and describe the relations among the documents and their
component parts by treating all of those as abstract conceptual entities.  I
think it will be easier and more understandable to do the latter -- treat
these as conceptual entities -- for now, and deal with the physical objects
when it is necessary (as it will be at some time.)  Most of the distinctions
among texts in the existing SUMO are related to physical documents, so I
have added some classes to the SMINK ontology to illustrate where I think
such abstract documents would be best located.  I have only added the UBL
documentation for these concepts, and have not attempted to put in the
attributes or associations for these document types.
The 8 UBL transaction-related documents will be found with the names
"AbstractInvoice", "AbstractOrder", etc.
as subclasses of "TransactionMessage"
in the SMINK006 ontology (KIF text file samin006.txt).    (09)


     The files available are:
     ftp://micra.com/ontolog/smink006.zip    --  the WinZipped Protege
                               files for the combined SUMO, Mid-Level,
                               and Invoices ontology:  SMINK006
     ftp://micra.com/ontolog/skifcore.zip    --  the WinZipped Protege
                               SKIFcore.* files (3) for the base Protege
                               ontology required to import a SKIF file
                               using the SKIF tab
     ftp://micra.com/ontolog/skif_tab.jar    --  the jar file for the
                                SkifTab plugin which will import a SKIF
                                file into Protege (if it follows the
                                SUMO-SKIF conventions)
     ftp://micra.com/ontolog/samin006.zip     --  a zipped text file
                                 "samin006.txt", which is the
                                SKIF-format file for the combined
                                SUMO, Mid-Level,  and Invoices
                                ontologies (the SKIF-text version of
                                Protege ontology SMINK006)    (010)

     As usual, I am eager to get any kind of feedback, positive or negative,
about the ontology or its Protege or SKIF representations.
I will also be happy to answer general questions about Protege or the plugin
that converts SKIF to Protege formats.    (011)

    I have not installed Sigma, as I am concentrating what time I can spare
on the Invoices conceptual content and Protege representation.
I would appreciate it if anyone who does have a working Sigma installed
would take the "samin006.txt" file (presumably in SKIF format) and try to
load it in Sigma to see if Sigma can pick up any syntax or logical errors
that I haven't detected.
Likewise with Sevcenko's browser.    (012)

     Pat    (013)


--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy    (014)

MICRA, Inc.                      || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave.               || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054        || (908) 668-5904 (fax)    (015)

internet:   cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
=============================================    (016)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (017)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (018)

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