Pat,
I
have to recognize your sophisticated versatility in many other
sophistical refutations, not only in ad hominen. Sometimes, it is not so bad to
be a formal logician.
Once more, "The Forum dedicated itself to some high
cause and activity, which seems increasingly drenching by offhand
debates" plainly meant that no need to hotly discuss here such extraneous
issues as the SW languages. All this stuff, RDF with its sequels, OWL with
its subsequences, and what next, has been openly criticised on the SW forum;
since for any unprejudiced mind it is plain that the formal languages are
conceptually defective as real ontologies and could not be the genuine
standards. And here John has the big point. But let the dead bury
their dead.
Dear All,
Let me remind that the whole thread was initiated by
Steven Ray with the large purpose; it is of use to repeat his
message:
[We have now established the
overall objective for this year’s ontology summit (see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009#nid1Q2F ) and the
following conversation breakout suggests itself. What might be productive is to
have people sign up for one or more of these aspects of the problem, with the
aim of producing some concrete results and recommendations prior to the
face-to-face meeting. Specifically:
1)
Background:
Compilation of existing ontological representations of
standards, along with their associated definitions – conformance classes,
testing suites and methodologies
2)
Participants - identification and outreach:
Organizations that should participate or be represented,
e.g. NATO, UN/CEFACT, ISO, OAGi, NCBO, OASIS, OMG,
…
3) Technical
discussion
1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a
standard?
2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied to
ontologies that are used to establish a standard?
3. What kinds of standards lend themselves to the use of ontologies as
their representation?
4. What ontological languages are best suited to represent
standards?
4)
Strategic vision and roadmap
Articulating a stretch vision, and the steps needed to get there. What do
we think information standards are going to look like 20 years from now? Who are
the movers to get us there? Who are the enablers and stakeholders? This is an environment where we can be
bold.
I encourage everyone to
identify themselves with one or more of these activities, and we can set up wiki
pages to hold the results. Just as last year, we will especially need people to
synthesize the conversations under each of these activities on a wiki page, as
we proceed. If we divide up these tasks, we can make a significant contribution
in a short time, without having to abandon our day jobs!
Let’s see how much we can accomplish together.
]
Then I
suggested: [For the rest 2-3 months, the Forum has time to debate and
decide on a principal matter: which general world model is most fitting to
science, arts, technology, commerce and industry, to conclude if "Standard
Ontology: a single malt or blended".]
I propose to avoid digressions, diversions
and excursions, if there is a serious intention to deliver some outsanding
ontology product, or at least to give it a good try.
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems
Ltd
Pahos, Moscow
http://www.eis.com.cy