Hi Paola, Peter, Denise, Ken, all: (01)
Paola, we strongly encourage you to join this Thursday's Ontolog Session.
Denise and I are working out a scheduled agenda, and I think we would love
to have a 10 minute or so description of your thoughts and an additional 10
minues or so for dialog on our common interests. (02)
Can you participate in this call? (03)
Cheers, (04)
Bob (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:49 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] glossary of ontology terminology (06)
> [PDM] Peter, is there a formal way of setting up this initiative with
this group? (07)
[ppy] Yes. See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidK (08)
That said, we should be careful NOT to duplicate existing effort ...
whether it's within Ontolog, or outside. ... I would be surprised if
some serious effort ref. the latter doesn't already exist. (09)
Within Ontolog, too, we already have an "Ontologizing Ontolog"
initiative - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologizingOntolog
... within which there is the TaxoThesaurus Project which BobSmith &
DeniseBedford are championing - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologTaxoThesaurus (010)
In fact, that team is doing a project review and update this Thursday
(see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2007_06_21
) after their break. (011)
Paola, you might consider joining the call to see if there is a need
for a deparate effort. (012)
Regards. =ppy
-- (013)
On 6/18/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Denise
>
> Yes of course we need a review process, but given the wealth of
> knowledgeable sources on this list I am sure we should be able to elicit
> some positive inputs to get us started
> In case there is no consensus on any given definition, we can always have
> more instances,
>
> Peter, is there a formal way of setting up this initiative with this
group?
>
> I am starting a similar process/procedure with the w3 incubator group
> regarding he emergency management ontology with a similar goal..
>
> Or shall I just start with pening a page and ask people to help refine the
> definitions in a civilized and open way using standard wiki culture?
> Ideally, we would make the glossary 'exportable' so that it can be pulled
by
> other websites
>
> suggestions?
>
> Comments? (do people think this is an impossible task for some reason)
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
> On 6/18/07, dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Paola,
> >
> > I think starting a glossary of ontology terminology is an excellent
idea.
> I think, though, that there should be an editorial and peer review process
> in place to manage the quality of content and to facilitate resolution of
> variations. And, that these processes should reflect the views and
> experiences of the larger community.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Denise
> >
> >
> > -----ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
> >
> >
> > To: "[ontolog-forum]" < ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent by: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: 06/17/2007 09:27AM
> > Subject: [ontolog-forum] glossary of ontology terminology
> >
> >
> >
> > Peoples,
> >
> > I am looking for a credible glossary of ontological terms, and I dont
find
> anything easily accessible, comprehensive and uptodate that I can trust
> >
> > I am aware there is a copyright issue - but we should try to go past
that?
> >
> > Wikipedia is still flakey, and this looks better carried out on the
web
> as a collective task. It looks like we have a good collection of
> definitions for 'ontology' on the summit wikipage, which shows that we
can
> produce things I wonder if we should start working towards creating
> definitions (ta community of practice starts with common terminology)
> >
> > (we dont have to agree on everything, we could always have d1. d2 etc)
> >
> >
> > The problem I have today is to define 'applied ontology' and 'formal
> ontology' and wonder if there is any further distinction
> > I have found some papers discussing in generally more than a page what a
> formal ontology is, but I am not satisfied
> > I find a useful reference on Jsowa glossary for formal ontology, but it
> does not seem to be contrasting other types of ontology
> > formal as opposed to terminological? or formal vs applied?
> >
> > what is applied ontology exactly? (wikipedia entry is contradictory)
> >
> > shall we start something? has someone compiled something that they
> want/can share and open up for collective editing? (I would be surprised
> otherwisee)
> > thanks
> >
> > PDM
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|