Azamat wrote:
> On Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:05 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> "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."
>
> I'd agree, being grateful for this, if the ontolog-forum has problem
> with this. But what about other "stakeholders"?
It is an offer.
>
> "We could also just do this on the Wikipedia site if they do not object
> to the amount of pages that this would add."
> This looks not such a good idea. The project and its content should be
> temporarily restricted for the wide public, imho.
>
The will not restrict private pages.
I already do this for the sites that I use internally so it is possible. (01)
I would not like to make the project too closed but that is just my
opinion and it can be done either way. (02)
Ron
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Wheeler"
> <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
>
>
>> Azamat wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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
>> ontology pages
>> - 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> We could also just do this on the Wikipedia site if they do not object
>> to the amount of pages that this would add.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>> Thanks
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/dynonto.htm
>>>> 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/
>> 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
>>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|