ERRATA: (01)
... the first line under the heading "What is an Ontology?" (02)
should read: (03)
... the first line under the heading "What iare Ontologies?" (04)
Sorry! -ppy
-- (05)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:45:54 -0800, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adam,
>
> I totally agree with you in the case of our approach in the NHIN-RFI response.
>
> The statement I cited, though, isn't associated with our approach or
> recommendation, but is the first line under the heading "What is an
> Ontology?" -- I assume, we are attempting, there, to explain to the
> audience (who may, or may not be totally conversant with the nuances)
> what ontologies are all about.
>
> Cheers. -ppy
> --
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:21:50 -0800, Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
> > Peter,
> > While ontolog's charter includes discussion of informal, as well as
> > formal ontologies, I believe the case we made in the NHIN RFI was for
> > benefits resulting from fully formal ontologies. When describing ontolog
> > in general, it's clear that you're right to keep our charter broad, but in
> > terms of specific recommendations I think we have had some consensus
> > advocating the latter approach.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 02:57 PM 1/20/2005, Peter Yim wrote:
> > >Additonal comments:
> > >
> > >Ref. the statement (used in our response):
> > >
> > > "A formalized ontology is nominally an explicit specification of
> > >the conceptual understandings shared by a community of practice. ..."
> > >
> > >I suggest we should use, instead:
> > >
> > > "To the information science and technology professional, an
> > >ontology is nominally an explicit specification of the conceptual
> > >understandings shared by a community of practice. ..."
> > >
> > >Rationale:
> > >
> > >1. I qualified it by adding "To the information science and
> > >technology professional" because, ontology may mean something quite
> > >different to, say, the metaphysicists.
> > >
> > >2. I also took out the word "formalized", because (a) Ontolog purports
> > >to deal with both formal and informal ontologies, and (b) the
> > >discourse on "ontologies", even to the information scientists, has
> > >(arguably) extended to cover "formal", as well as "semi-formal" and
> > >"informal" ontologies.
> > >
> > >I just wanted to document this, as we'll quite possibly be using this
> > >paragraph over-and-over again as a boiler plate in the future.
> > >
> > >Cheers. -ppy
> > >--
> > >
> > >On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:03:11 -0800, Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
> > > > Bob et al.,
> > > >
> > > > Great Job! Kudos to all who contributed to the response.
> > > >
> > > > I've uploaded the response to our file repository as:
> > > >
> > >
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/NHIN_final-ontolog-rfi-response_20050118.doc
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes to the team ... when the next phase of the NHIN activities
> > > > come around.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & regards. -ppy
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Bob Smith wrote Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:58:40 -0800:
> > > >
> > > > > Attached is the Ontolog Community response to the RFI issues by Dr.
> > > > > Brailer's Office.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >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
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Adam Pease
> > http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/health-ont/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/
To Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfi (06)
|