> On Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:04 PM, John wrote:
> "I would start the development with a registry that would allow
> anyone to register their favorite ontologies. The relationships
> among them would be computed by reviewers and users who do the
> work of adapting them for their own purposes and reporting their
> studies, observations, calculations, experiences, and results."
> Very clear and sensible. Could you, John, enlighten the subsequent questions
> of where is this registry place and of who are the reviewers? Do we need any
> voting for this? Or, these issues can be handled by Peter.
You mean that you actually want to do something practical? Have we run
out of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" discussions? (02)
Perhaps a good start might be to make a wiki with:
- 1 page for each ontology
- a sensible and easily extensible set of categories to group them together
- a section of pages for comparisons and analysis with link to the
- sections for candidate sets of ontologies that might make up
reasonable FOs (in case hell does not freeze over or $10 million fails
to fall out of the sky) for someone
- pages to discussions of the comparison of the FO candidate sets. (03)
I think that a wiki would do the job and let everyone participate. It
would be easy to add new ontologies (or links to ontologies) and make
"peer" review very easy. (04)
I have used MediaWiki (Wikipedia's wiki tool) for a couple of sites and
it is easy to set up and fairly intuitive to use.
If it would help, I would be happy to host it. (05)
We could also just do this on the Wikipedia site if they do not object
to the amount of pages that this would add. (06)
> A side note, Patrick and Ed, please, let's break theoretical issues and old
> reminiscences , however engaging, just for a while: not to distract from the
> organizational track, if any.
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>> More comments on the recent notes:
>> JFS>> If the federated ontologies are organized in a hierarchy,
>>>> I would consider that a reasonable way to start.
>> AA> It is. A Top-Bottom Globally Federated Ontology (GFO).
>>> I wonder how do you think it should be kicked off?
>> In publications and email notes, I discussed the organization of
>> a family of ontologies as a lattice of theories. But an infinite
>> lattice is obviously too big to be implemented. To avoid confusion,
>> I suggest that we call the collection of *implemented* theories
>> (ontologies) a *hierarchy*.
>> The hierarchy would only only contain a tiny fraction of the
>> total lattice, but the relations among theories would be the
>> same: generalization and specialization define a partial order;
>> a family of closely related ontologies all have a common
>> generalization; two ontologies that are inconsistent have the
>> absurd theory at the bottom as their only common specialization.
>> As many people have observed, it is difficult to compute those
>> relations for any two arbitrary theories. However, it is much
>> easier to use those relations for *generating* or *designing*
>> ontologies. Whenever you combine two modules (smaller theories),
>> the larger one is automatically a common specialization. Whenever
>> you delete axioms, the new theory is always a generalization.
>> I would start the development with a registry that would allow
>> anyone to register their favorite ontologies. The relationships
>> among them would be computed by reviewers and users who do the
>> work of adapting them for their own purposes and reporting their
>> studies, observations, calculations, experiences, and results.
>> DC> The trick is to find the organization in the US Government
>>> that would fund such an effort...
>> The initial stage could be kicked off very quickly with a minimum
>> of effort and expense. As people begin to use the hierarchy, more
>> structure and policies could be added to systematize those ways
>> of using it that have proved to be the most productive. If and
>> when it proves to be valuable, more groups would join. As an
>> example of a successful collaboration by independent companies
>> and individuals, see the Eclipse project, http://www.eclipse.org .
>> RW> I do not object to government participation as long as there are
>>> 99 other organizations with $100,000 worth of skin in the project.
>> I suggest Eclipse as a model to emulate. It started with software
>> contributed by IBM from a project that had been terminated. It grew
>> by collaboration of businesses and individuals, and it continues to
>> attract open source software from a variety of areas.
>> MB> The participants [in the ISO 20022 financial messaging standard]
>>> were mostly business subject matter experts. However, some of those
>>> experts were used to looking at data in a real time market data feed,
>>> so that the value of a variable was as of "now", while other experts
>>> were from the back office, where they dealt with the terms that
>>> are set up for a security for all time...
>> That is true of any field. Different people for different purposes
>> view the same or related things from different perspectives. In any
>> company, the engineering, manufacturing, sales, financial, legal,
>> and human resources departments will have very different views,
>> terminology, and ways of thinking about the same things and events.
>> The customers and suppliers of that company will have an even more
>> varied way of talking and thinking about their interactions with
>> that company and its products and services.
>> Those 2000 defining terms in the Longman's dictionary do not map
>> to primitive predicates in logic. Instead, they are tokens in
>> Wittgensteinian language games, and each term has a different
>> *microsense* in each possible game. Each department in the
>> same company will use a different collection of language games
>> with different microsenses for the same terms.
>> In terms of the hierarchy of ontologies, it is possible to have
>> very underspecified (general) ontologies for common terms that
>> are shared by different departments. But those very general
>> ontologies are specialized in different ways for the microsenses
>> used in each department.
>> For more about these ideas, see the paper I presented at FOIS 2006:
>> A Dynamic Theory of Ontology
>> John Sowa
>> 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/
> 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 (09)