Just a comment on the use of the term "standard":
I have described a foundation ontology as a "standard of meaning" but this
is intended as a very loose usage of the term 'standard'. It is not
necessarily a formal 'standard', just something that is used in common by
some community of significant size (more than a few users). What I suggest
be built first is a *common* foundation ontology that can be tested by a
variety of users with different goals. If it proves satisfactory to a large
enough community, then it may become a formal "standard".
I regret my loose use of the word "standard" that may be causing some
In its first incarnation, a common foundation ontology would only be a
'standard' in the sense that the Windows operating system is a standard - a
common platform/environment/paradigm that can serve to integrate multiple
applications within some community of users. There could also be more than
one common foundation ontology used by different groups, just as there is
more than one widely used operating system. But one may well dominate the
field, because when one is interested in interoperability, the largest
community of users will usually be an important consideration. (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:20 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Next step in using ontologies for
> Harmonisation: was Next steps in using ontologies as standards
> The thread on using ontologies as standard is most interesting.
> I would like to bring up three observation, the first that development
> of quite a few "standards" are nowdays part of organizations
> *economical* activities on a strategic level. They are tools for
> creating (technical) means for interoperability as well as means for
> guiding (both in positive and negative sense) research and development
> efforts into certain areas. Thus making it very difficult to talk about
> the "best" standards etc". Best for whom and in what sense?
> Secondly I support the comments on the need for "killer applications"
> and the importance of actual implementations in standardisation work.
> Standards are there to be used and from experiences important
> corrections are usually found.
> Thirdly, finding *one* *best* solution, ontology, theory, model,
> etc. may be a worthwhile goal for projects. although on a international
> and multiorganisational level it is a huge undertaking. I prefer to
> about *harmonisation* instead of standardisation in the sense that
> harmonisation means that the number of alternative XYZ are *reduced*.
> Using an harmonisation approach to increase knowledge, bring people and
> organizations together promise to be more efficient than most
> standardisation approaches.
> Why not add Harmonisation activity to the ontology summit?
> /anders w. tell
> Steve Ray wrote:
> > To the ontology community,
> > We have now established the overall objective for this year's
> > summit (see:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009#nid1Q2F )
> > and the following conversation breakout suggests itself. What might
> > productive is to have people sign up for one or more of these aspects
> > of the problem, with the aim of producing some concrete results and
> > recommendations prior to the face-to-face meeting. Specifically:
> > 1) Background:
> > Compilation of existing ontological representations of standards,
> > along with their associated definitions - conformance classes,
> > suites and methodologies
> > 2) Participants - identification and outreach:
> > Organizations that should participate or be represented, e.g. NATO,
> > UN/CEFACT, ISO, OAGi, NCBO, OASIS, OMG, .
> > 3) Technical discussion
> > 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a standard?
> > 2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied
> > ontologies that are used to establish a standard?
> > 3. What kinds of standards lend themselves to the use of ontologies
> > their representation?
> > 4. What ontological languages are best suited to represent standards?
> > 4) Strategic vision and roadmap
> > Articulating a stretch vision, and the steps needed to get there.
> > do we think information standards are going to look like 20 years
> > now? Who are the movers to get us there? Who are the enablers and
> > stakeholders? This is an environment where we can be bold.
> > I encourage everyone to identify themselves with one or more of these
> > activities, and we can set up wiki pages to hold the results. Just as
> > last year, we will especially need people to synthesize the
> > conversations under each of these activities on a wiki page, as we
> > proceed. If we divide up these tasks, we can make a significant
> > contribution in a short time, without having to abandon our day jobs!
> > Let's see how much we can accomplish together.
> > Steven R. Ray, Chief
> > Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> > National Institute of Standards & Technology
> > Phone: (301) 975-3524
> > Fax: (301) 258-9749
> > Email: ray@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ray@xxxxxxxx>
> > Web: http://www.nist.gov/msid
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > 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
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (05)