[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] TomGrubers Ontology Clearinghouse

To: Ontology Summit Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Deborah MacPherson <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>, Tom Gruber <onto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:10:38 -0700
Message-id: <4612A6AE.6000106@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Deborah & Tom,    (01)

Logistics issue here ...    (02)

Since this thread is OntologySummit2007 specific (while admitted 
the discourse has a much broader implication), may I suggest you 
continue the dialog on the [ontology-summit] list instead. (I 
have it on both list now. Either one of you, or anyone else, 
could pick this up and 'reply' to the message with the 
[ontology-summit] prefixed subject line, and take it over there.    (03)

Thanks.  =ppy    (04)

P.S. Also, Deborah, in view of our Ontolog IPR policy 
could you eliminate your message footer, please.
--    (05)

Deborah MacPherson wrote Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:25:13 -0400:
> RE: OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response 
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response> 
> input from TomGruber <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TomGruber> 
>    (Y5I) 
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Survey/TomGruber#nidY5I>    (06)

> If one option to address Ontology Problems (3c) in Corresponding 
> Solutions (3d) is to create:
> "- an open, well-maintained clearinghouse for ontologies and related 
> products and services that are enabled by them."    (07)

> The clearinghouse seems like a clean, idealized place made from a 
> combination of specifications, community databases, similar philosophies 
> and other components of functional ontologies.    (08)

> However, because peoples interests and investigations are so diverse, it 
> would probably be messy and chaotic. The most straightforward way for 
> such a clearinghouse to be well-maintained could be "specifying the 
> constructs for representing domains of discourse or knowledge". That 
> way, clearinghouse contributors could easily use domains to place or 
> register their ontology in relation to similar ontologies, products and 
> services. Potential ontology consumers without special training or 
> previous knowledge about all the ontologies available, could begin 
> looking in their own domain for ontologies, products, and services most 
> likely suited to their particular communication and computational goals.    (09)

> What has me wondering is - what if it was also possible to develop "a 
> clear binding of ontologies to products and services so that people can 
> find the ontology based on their functional requirements, rather than 
> the domain of discourse."?    (010)

> What would hold similar functions together or create distinctions 
> between them once they are more abstract than a domain of discourse or 
> knowledge? How would contributors register and explain how their 
> ontologies, products and services can be used? How would potential 
> consumers know where to start looking by function alone? Would an ideal 
> goal be to plug and play until you found or put together a system that 
> works with your data and processing needs?    (011)

> The other nagging question is "Please do not talk about ontology as a 
> /method/. This confuses things. Ontology is never a way of doing things. 
> It is at the very least some kind of document or knowledge 
> representation or database. If one thinks of an ontology as a 
> specification, then the methods used to create or apply it can be 
> understood in terms of design or engineering methodologies."    (012)

> But if functions alone could be used as way of understanding, aren't 
> these very methods and ways of doing things necessary to express what 
> the functions can do? If both domains and methods were removed as 
> organizing factors of a well-designed, well-run clearinghouse, what is 
> the clear binding "made of"?    (013)

> Do goals of the clearinghouse include surprise discoveries in "semantic 
> mashups" and streamlining similar functions regardless of their original 
> use?    (014)

> If so, what is missing from or unnecessary in current forms of 
> specifications, knowledge representation and databases to get from the 
> state of the art now to establishing and maintaining such an idealized 
> place?
> Debbie
>     (015)

> *************************************************
> Deborah L. MacPherson <http://www.deborahmacpherson.com>
> <http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=153&DID=5147> CSI 
> <http://www.csinet.org/> CCS, AIA <http://www.aia.org/>
> WDG Architecture PLLC <http://www.wdgarch.com>
> Accuracy&Aesthetics <http://www.accuracyandaesthetics.com>
> The content of this email may contain private
> confidential information. Do not forward, copy,
> share, or otherwise distribute without explicit
> written permission from all correspondents.
> **************************************************    (016)

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      (017)

Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (018)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>