On the original topic, I assumed that this was about using ontologies
in standards. (01)
I think that this is, in principle, an excellent idea. And it has no
dependency on 'upper ontologies'. (02)
Most standards specifications introduce terminology as well as
defining conformance points. Nearly all the time, the terminology
(concepts and relationships) are introduced very informally. Using
formal techniques is potentially very helpful for this. (03)
There are a couple of interesting examples of this; some people may be
aware of the Open Group's SOA Ontology. This is really an attempt to
define some SOA architectural concepts using the formal framework of
OWL. (Personal note, I am *definitely* not an apologist for the OG
work; I have a number of issues with it.) (04)
Another example, the OASIS SOA Reference Model is a fairly influential
document that introduces quite a lot of terminology. At one point we
considered the use of OWL to formally define and relate the terms that
we were using. We chose to go with the more informal concept maps
instead; mostly because we (a) did not have the resources to make the
effort and (b) did not feel that our audience would appreciate the
effort. (05)
In fact, the upcoming work by the OASIS Semantic Web Services TC on
the Reference Ontology for Semantic Web Services is supposed to be the
spec of a standard ontology; but is, in many ways, more like a
formalization of the SOA RM. (Again, I am not implying any judgement
on the merits of the specification itself.) (06)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|