[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Time representation, fruitfulness, AND formatting posts

To: Ontolog Forum <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:06:12 +0100
Message-id: <p06240804c3c1462937d6@[]>
Wow.    (01)

Having (been) signed on to this forum only a week ago, and being a naif about 
ontologies, I hesitate to  normally venture in.  But having gained at least 4 
very interesting new concepts, 3 great quotes, 2 reference lists of some value, 
and a great outline of best practices for different ontology development 
situations (better than a partridge, methinks), I'm hooked. (Possibly a bad 
thing!)    (02)

Sorry for the off-thread introduction, but I wanted you all to know that you 
were appreciated.  Now on to business.    (03)

Re time representation: The post on OWL-Time seemed to respond to most of the 
earlier 'wishes', and relegate the others to new threads.  Thus I didn't 
understand:    (04)

At 4:33 PM -0500 1/23/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>Yes, if possible, at least some critical mass of ontologists should adopt some 
>model and notation for time representation that can serve as a standard for 
>those who do not have some inconsistent alternative that they feel strongly 
>about.    (05)

In what way was OWL-Time not this thing, in fact designed for it? (Or at least 
designed 'fruitfully' enough to enable it, even if it wasn't part of the 
specific statement of purpose?)  Or is the issue that a group of ontologists 
need to agree it's the best practice?    (06)

With respect to those frustrated by the recurrence of that term, it seemed to 
me to capture the essence of best practice of software design, ontology design, 
*and* scientific theories. While 2 out of 3 of those topics were not directly 
ontological, their use as analogies informed and prompted a very important (to 
me) ontological thread, namely on best practices for different ontology 
purposes. This directly addressed a key issue I am facing, namely, building 
ontologies when the target community/usage is broader than the participating 
community/originating use case.    (07)

If fruitfulness is an unpleasant topic for some, perhaps an option for them is 
to not read the posts about fruitfulness. For me, it was a powerful concept.  
Alternatively, perhaps another term would be clearer in some contexts (but I 
can't think of one).    (08)

Which leads to....  I just read a week of posts (ouch), and note two 
difficulties:    (09)

Topics change but the subject line often doesn't.  Makes it hard to follow, or 
avoid, topics of (dis)interest.  Might we try to attend to that?    (010)

And, some very long posts have responses in-line, at least up to a point. But 
one has to browse the whole post to know if there are more comments.  Any of 
these would help: a note to say 'this is the end of my comments', or editing 
down the original post to points of interest, or deleting the rest of the post 
after the responses end.    (011)

And I'm sorry for breaking the one-topic-per-post rule AND the keep-it-brief 
rule! If you want to respond anyway, please break topics (and subject headers) 
back out as you see fit, according to your response(s).    (012)

Thanks,    (013)

John    (014)

John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org   ||  Shore Side Data 
System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds    (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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>