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)
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?
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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.
>> 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)