Sounds like a plan.
Where do these fit in http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/ontology/
To my untrained eye, they seem to address a lot of the items raised in
your point 4. (01)
Ron (02)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Pat,
>
> If you like the term 'foundation ontology', I won't complain. But
> please note that the method of the Longman dictionary is totally
> different from anything that we have been calling an ontology. Their
> defining vocabulary, as they say in the introduction, is intended for
> people who are learning English as a second language. It is not an
> ontology like Cyc, SUMO, BFO, Dolce, etc.
>
> The people who use the Longman Learners' Dictionary have an enormous
> amount of background knowledge beyond any computer system today.
> They are able to use that knowledge to interpret the very incomplete
> so-called definitions. That may be useful for people, but it's not
> an ontology that could be used for deductive reasoning by computers.
>
> On the other hand, those very incomplete definitions are not bad for
> specifying an incomplete type hierarchy, somewhat along the lines of
> WordNet. Something at that level can be extremely valuable, as the
> many applications of WordNet have demonstrated. In fact, it could
> also be useful as a basis for a *lightweight* low-cost foundation.
>
> Following is my recommendation for a foundation ontology (FO).
> I'm sending this note to both ontolog-forum and the SUO mailing
> list, because something along these lines could be appropriate
> for an IEEE standard:
>
> 1. A lightweight, low-cost foundation, an initial version of which
> could be developed relatively quickly without a large investment
> of cash, but which could evolve into something much more complete.
>
> 2. The initial components of the FO would take advantage of resources
> that have proved to be successful in practical applications. But
> the principles should also have a sound logical basis to enable
> a smooth evolution and transition toward a more complete system.
>
> 3. A simple, but widely used resource is WordNet. Its advantage is
> wide coverage, and its lack of detailed axioms enables it to be
> adapted to multiple purposes without creating contradictions.
> However, many aspects of WordNet, such as its top-level categories,
> would require revisions or replacement before being adopted and
> adapted into the FO type hierarchy. Many other resources could
> also be added, but with considerable revisions to avoid conflicts.
> The FO hierarchy would initially have very few axioms, of which
> the primary ones would be the subtype/supertype relations.
>
> 4. Other important resources are the standards for dates, times,
> geographical locations, units of measurement, monetary units,
> chemical elements and compounds, etc. The terminology and the
> mathematical relations among terms should be related to the FO
> hierarchy and made available for all applications.
>
> 5. Organizations for the sciences, engineering, law, medicine,
> businesses, governments, agriculture, etc., have established
> standardized terminology with standard definitions and detailed
> specifications. These terms should be related to the basic
> FO hierarchy, but a suitable naming scheme is necessary to
> distinguish homonyms used in different standards and revisions.
>
> 6. The development of the FO should be coordinated with existing
> bodies such as ISO, W3C, and various governmental and non-
> governmental organizations. The naming scheme should enable
> different bodies to control their own terminology while relating
> them to the basic FO type hierarchy.
>
> There is a lot more to be said, but I believe that something along
> these lines would be (a) relatively inexpensive to get started,
> (b) upward compatible with existing practices, (c) immediately useful
> for practical applications, and (d) compatible with both formal
> deductive systems and much more informal tools used for information
> classification and retrieval.
>
> If we do a good job, it could become an IEEE standard.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|