I would be interested in contributing the work that we are just
finalising in the “eGovernment Focus Group” set up by the European
standards agency, CEN. In this we have developed a high-level model for sharing
information on eGovernment services, between humans and machines using Topic
Maps (= “semantic web with a human face”!) and using an ATOM-based
protocol for distributing ontology fragments through a decentralised, federated
I hope to have something for you for the 3rd Jan call
or shortly afterwards. We will be presenting our demo for the first time
publicly at the Microsoft Government Leaders Forum (GLF) in Berlin on 22nd
January, following initial work sponsored by SUN Microsystems.
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane
Sent: 21 December 2007 17:35
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Start thinking about the 2008 Ontology
+1 with the following additions (in time
but designing a system to support).
+ Free public API’s where organizations with folksonomies (tag clouds
often represent these), can link terms in their folksonomies to disambiguate
words like “Washington” which may have several meanings.
+ a system architecture with no single point of failure and a flexible service
oriented approach to creating a platform for ontology work on the web
+ some artifacts to explain in simple lay terms, how to use the ontology and
how to reference items in it from taxonomies and folksonomies with simple
context and event declarations.
+ a strong thrust of work on context.
On 12/21/07 8:13 AM, "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I won’t be able to participate in the Jan 3 call,
I have a conflict.
For the next ontology summit I would like to once again
see if there is a path we can take to get agreement on some common foundation
ontology. The first step is to identify some significant part of the ontology
community that will make a serious proposal to a funding agency to support the
efforts of an effective cross-section of the community of those who have worked
on foundation ontologies and those who are building applications that require
the reasoning capabilities that a FOL-based ontology can provide. I
think it would be particularly helpful to have representation from those who
are exploring the use of ontologies for natural language understanding in such
a project. We have discussed this issue before, and at this time it
would probably take over 5 million to support a basic effort of that kind.
To get that kind of money we will need more of a consensus than has been
visible up to now. But we have learned a lot in the past five
years, and the time may be ripe for another attempt.
The tactic I now think may have the best chance
of moving forward is to structure the common foundation ontology as a
‘conceptual defining vocabulary’ that will have all the primitive
concept representations necessary to create ontologies in any specialized area,
with each element in each domain ontology specified as a combination of the
primitive elements. That’s the goal, and it will be approached
incrementally over time as the foundation ontology expands to meet the needs of
new applications. By viewing the foundation ontology in this way, I think
it will be possible to keep the size at a level where it will not be too
difficult to master. Wherever there is some disagreement on how to represent
some particular idea, the disagreeing parties effort could focus on describing
the differences in terms of formal representations – and the
concept representations they agree on to describe the differences would then be
candidates for inclusion in the foundation ontology, with the different views
pushed out into extensions (or, if one prefers, different dependent ontologies
in a “lattice of ontologies”). This tactic may
increase the ability to agree on the most fundamental concept representations.
The problem of interoperability is still facing us, and from
the perspective of getting semantic interoperability at a level that can
support automated decisions in a mission-critical application, I don’t
perceive any significant progress outside of the limited communities that each
have fixed on some common upper ontology. I think we can do better to
move toward a critical mass that attracts vendors of utilities and
applications. As a scientific/engineering community it may be appropriate
for us to feel an obligation to seriously explore all the possible ways to
improve the utility of our ontologies. My suggestion is to explore the
“conceptual defining vocabulary” tactic, and I hope we can have at
least a few hour session at the Ontology Summit (or perhaps at FOIS, or both)
for discussing that .
If there is anyone else interested in exploring this
approach, we can start discussions in this forum to identify the issues in this
approach that need to be clarified, so that some portion of our community might
be able to come to a consensus on whether or not to make a formal funding
Meanwhile, have yourselves a Merry Little Christmas.
On Behalf Of Peter F Brown
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Start thinking about the 2008 Ontology
I look forward to it, and hope to join the call on Jan 3 and submit some ideas
then or before…
As regards the dates, you might want to take account of the fact that OASIS
have their AGM, Symposium and Board meeting in Santa Clara during the week 28
April to 2 May, so the Mon/Tue following would be ideal, at least for me who
will be involved in all three, but also many potential participants who may
well be at the Symposium at least.
That said, I know from experience that trying to find available time windows is
On Behalf Of Steve Ray
Sent: 21 December 2007 15:45
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Start thinking about the 2008 Ontology Summit
As we have for the past two years, we are planning on holding a face-to-face
meeting of the ontology community at NIST in the spring of 2008. We are ironing
out some logistic details, but it is looking like a likely date is late April.
The purpose of this email is to solicit ideas for the topic we tackle this
year, and then undertake an online discussion culminating in the meeting. One
possibility is to arrive at a resolution by the community to support an online
ontology repository somewhere. This topic is going to be discussed anyway at
the January 3rd Ontolog Forum conference call – you may want to call in.
There are numerous other possibilities for the Ontology Summit – please
submit your favorites.
Steven R. Ray, Chief
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Phone: (301) 975-3524
Fax: (301) 258-9749
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Speaking only for myself"
Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html