ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:35:41 -0500
Message-id: <496CDEFD.7080705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mike
If you could fill in the wiki with the information that someone looking 
for a financial/business ontology would like to know about what you have 
done, that would be a great model for others to follow.    (01)

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ListOfKnownOntologies    (02)

Ron    (03)


Mike Bennett wrote:
> I agree. I would add that for the most part, the terms needed in a given 
> industry are already owned by communities of practitioners and standard 
> bodies in that industry, so all that's needed is to offer to those 
> groups a way to enhance their work with an ontology which they would own 
> and manage. Whether that lives on their own servers with links to some 
> common management framework, or lives on some commonly managed resource 
> with links to their existing standards materials (e.g. messages and so 
> on) will depend on where each of those groups is currently at.
>
> So for example in the financial industry, once the ISO 20022 version 2 
> interbank messaging standard is available (which it isn't yet), this 
> will have an explicit semantic component defined in the standard. The 
> content will be managed by a Registration Authority appointed by ISO, 
> likely to be someone like SWIFT. The methods for translating the 
> semantics to various physical message formats will almost certainly 
> follow the OMG's MDMI standard (I just came off a call with SWIFT and 
> OMG on this) and the semantics model itself will be either in native OWL 
> or ODM, most likely ODM.
>
> So assuming that the financial industry is fairly typical, the question 
> is not one of finding some green field site where no-one has heard of 
> semantics and offering to create a great ontology, it's a question of 
> providing some way of inter-relating the more basic concepts from which 
> the semantics models in each industry are built, so that you end up with 
> ontologies that have some formal relations among them. For instance in 
> the current draft semantics model for the financial industry we have had 
> to use a lot of primitive concepts for financial (based on XBRL), time, 
> geography, math, legal and so on. Most of these we've had to make up for 
> ourselves but would expect to be able to find an interoperable and 
> respected world of semantics models from which to draw these concepts. 
> This is the missing piece at the moment.
>
> In other words it's in the formal semantics inter-relations that I would 
> see this community being able to add something, not so much in the idea 
> of modeling semantics for people. Each industry will want to do that, 
> and there has been a huge explosion in the appreciation of semantics at 
> least in the financial industry, and probably in others.
>
> I don't know if that is in line with how others see things here?
>
> Mike
>
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>   
>> 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
>>  
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>       (04)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>