I think that the wiki is more likely to be a way to document
"intelligent unanimity" where it exists rather than in the forum where
unanimity is documented by a cessation of discussion rather than a
clear statement of agreed fact.
Perhaps, if we can at least document some facts and related opinions in
an organized way, we might be able to demonstrate, at least to
ourselves, that there is a basis for asking a rich third party to
provide some funding with some expectation that they will get more than
a brilliant discussion of angel choreography ending in a draw due to
exhaustion of funding.
Ron
Azamat wrote:
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:43 PM, John wrote:
"My point is that we can begin this work today with mostly volunteer effort.
If we do a decent job, the funding will come
later. But we need to do something solid to demonstrate that this group is
capable of accomplishing something. Otherwise,
hope for multimillion-dollar grants is a pipe dream."
It seems we are both late of the current situation with research grants.
What is really now going on is: the pipe dream ontology projects are getting
multimillion grants, at least here, in EU, within the framework programs, as
FP 6 and FP 7. Call them the sink projects, like 16m DIP ontology or 14m
NeON ontology or OntoLogging or SEK, or what not, easily absorbing the
public funds with all sorts of ontological phantasies. I indicated this
reckless and irresponsible academic adventurism in the Reality book.
Next, with all my critical approach to things, this Forum can meet the most
challenging ontological projects unlike others. But what it is lacking the
organization and intelligent unanimity, always needed at the point of
criticality.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards
Ron,
I want to point out that my proposal requires a minimal amount
of funding to get started.
I am not suggesting that we should build a full OR. I believe
that there is a project currently underway. I hope that the
functional requirements that are outlined below will be considered
in that process.
I am not proposing that we begin by developing *any* ontologies.
The starting work requires less effort than this group puts into
a hotly debated email thread:
1. Define the operators that relate the theories in the hierarchy.
Adolf Lindenbaum kindly did the theoretical work for us about
80 years ago, and I summarized it in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of
the following paper:
http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm
2. The next point is to develop a set of policies about how
to handle contributions, relate them, evaluate them, etc.
As Elisa said, the OBO has a well developed framework that
does much of what we need, and we could start by identifying
what they have accomplished that we can adopt, and what more
we would like to add.
After these two points have been established (or even during the
debate about them), Peter Yim or anybody else on the list that
wants to do so could set up a Foundation Ontology wiki.
We would also need a cute logo, design graphics, and a URL with
an appropriate name that is dedicated to the Foundation Ontology.
That can also be set up in parallel.
The ontologies themselves would come from donations. Some of
those that are already available as open source could be adapted
very quickly by adding the appropriate metadata and making a
place for them in the hierarchy. They need not be physically
moved from their starting places, but we do need to establish
some controls for versioning, etc., which are often minimal
or nonexistent in open-source resources.
My point is that we can begin this work today with mostly
volunteer effort. If we do a decent job, the funding will come
later. But we need to do something solid to demonstrate that
this group is capable of accomplishing something. Otherwise,
hope for multimillion-dollar grants is a pipe dream.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|