Hi Peter
[ppy] Of course (you may choose to not join us at the call)! ... We
are expecting to do a synchronous voice session this Thursday (and not
a chat session ... and the facility to support the same has not been
planned), so don't worry about staying up for it!
I would love to join, but it's in the middle of the night here. ( I can join if we adjust the time
say 3 hours earlier or so, but I am happy to input my thoughts via mail. I
it is very easy to set up a skype multichat instantly btw, so no need
to plan for that, lets just do it when we want to talk about something)
> [PDM] denise, and all, please start diggin up your collections, i would love to
> see the work that has been done to date
[ppy] I though I already sent you the link on my last message ...
were you able to view them?
Peter, thanks a lot for the links. it looks like a lot of stuff there,
but I did not find is the link to a page listing the existing resources
, something immediately usable
list 1. denise
list 2 patricks
etc
which is what I need in times of uncertainty
have I missed it? do you need me to help compile one?
Thanks a lot
PDM
-
On 6/18/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
<paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter, and all,
>
> Thanks for inviting us to the call, I am at odds with my timezone, so may I
> not make it
> (will try if cant sleep and remote connection works, more likely to be by
> chat than voice)
>
> Denise seems to think that a new effort might be a good idea, despite her
> championing a related one
> (denise, and all, please start diggin up your collections, i would love to
> see the work that has been done to date
>
> I am all not for duplication, so I will leave you guys to decide whats best
> - maybe simply update the scope and relaunch existing projects, that would
> be great for me
>
> for my part, I see the following requirement that I would like to put
> forward for the call agenda,
>
> - an online updatable 'open' resource that can be used as stable reference
> (lots of knowledge would otherwise get lost)
>
> - while to some extent 'validation' by an editorial committee would be
> useful, equally useful would be the research aspect aimed at collecting
> perspectives and definitions in use de fact. This practically means that
> users should be able to interact with the words,
>
> - a page to gather such resources, for eample pat cassidy's page as well as
> bobs and denises pages, and other related ones (this means that I, in search
> for meaning of not so self descriptive words, may be able to look up more
> than one reference by consulting our page of 'resources')
>
> - a long term view to integrate disparate resoruces for the purpose of
> consolidating a common vocabulary
> across parallel sectors (w3? oasis? ieee? anyone else out there?)
>
>
> I see glossary and controlled vocabulary as the first (necesary) step
> towards a semantic network, when we can add a set of relationships to our
> terms we may be able to embed some logic in there too
>
> thanks for supporting my request, look forward!
>
> Paola DM
>
>
>
>
> On 6/19/07, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [PDM] Peter, is there a formal way of setting up this initiative with
> this group?
> >
> > [ppy] Yes. See:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidK
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Paola, you might consider joining the call to see if there is a need
> > for a deparate effort.
> >
> > Regards. =ppy
> > --
> >
> >
> > 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 (01)
|