|
On Saturday, February 07, 2009 7:32 PM, Ravi
wrote:
"how close are we to agreeing on a few approaches for "standards"
that most ontology formalisms would consider "Essential" for
Communication..."
Not very close. Still the nasty and rocky issues of the standard model
have to be resolved. Some of them are:
Which basic categories of things go as the canonical classes of
entities and relationships?
What is the basic level of the standard scheme?
Are the standard categories defined by members (extension) or
properties (intension);
How the standard classes are organized?
How domain ontologies and data models are structured by standard
ontology?
What formal languages are most effective to represent the standard classes
and relations?
Besides, there is the question of questions: what is the nature of standard
ontology, is it about the real world categorization: arranging,
grouping, or distributing all things and items into standard categories
according to their natural relationships. Or, it is something else, unified
metadata scheme, canonic information reference, global data model, etc.?
So, it appears there is still some work to do.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 7:32
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there
something I missed?
John, Azamat, Pat and other participants and contributors:
Though a late entrant and guilty of not having read the full thread: So,
how close are we to agreeing on a few approaches for "standards"
that most ontology formalisms would consider "Essential" for
Communication (and inter operation if machine interpreted- a category of high
relevance today) and "Desirable" or "Nice to Have". Would these be approached
from "Meta-data" or "attributes" discussed some time ago, or would these
specify items such as XML, OWL, UML etc? Where do we start (Context, Concept),
Triples based "things"and "relationships", how far we go to connect to CL,
FOL, etc.? For some of us, practical hints, even if these need to go to more
mature standards later, are helpful, and Steve Ray would also appreciate them
as we are closer to next Summit!
Best Regards.
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740
Mobile
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron
and Azamat,
It's important to have an appropriate balance between
talk and action.
RW> It appears that there is very little
enthusiasm for real work here.
> Endless arguments around the edges of each
topic seem to be the
> flavour of the month. There is very
little interest is highlighting
> areas of agreement except to
buttress some argument against someone
> else's
ideas.
I sympathize with that complaint.
AA> ... the Forum
happened to collect most advanced minds in the
> sphere of ontology and ontology engineering.
With high
> organization, the Group can solve most
challenging tasks,
> delivering outstanding
products.
I agree with the word 'can'. The group has the
*potential* to
do something important, but there are many email groups
like this
one that have had good participants, but very little
*observable*
results. I emphasized the word 'observable', because
many ideas
that people learn from a book, university, or discussion
group
may eventually be transformed into action.
One thing that
facilitates the transfer of ideas into action is
*money*. An
enlightened manager with sufficient funding can often
transform good
ideas into outstanding products. But misguided
managers can produce
disasters. And to protect the guilty, I
won't cite some cases where
the same manager pushed a good idea
to a brilliant success, was promoted
to a more powerful position,
and later pushed some bad ideas to
disaster.
AA> In many Russian village, you may find places where
few local
> senior women, babushkas, sit all day talking
about nothing.
> The content and the purpose are of little
importance. What is
> important, the act of exchanging rumors,
anecdotes, and gossips,
> the process of conversation.
Usually, these closed country fora
> led by gabbiest
babushkas, full of trivial news.
I don't want to defend
everything that the babushki discuss, but
there have been sociological
studies that show the importance of
seemingly trivial gossip. If
you type "gossip sociology" to Google,
you'll get over a million hits.
Following is the first one:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960701-000035.html
The real slant on gossip
Some excerpts below.
If you
just read the published literature, you can gather a great
deal of
important detail that has been well reviewed and edited.
But you also get
a lot of mediocre writing that was reviewed,
considered moderately
acceptable, and never proved to be useful.
But there are several
important things you don't get:
1. Detailed debate that
evaluates the ideas and provides personal
experience about
how those ideas worked out in practice.
2. Disasters, which the
people involved almost never want to
publish and the people
who were not involved seldom have
enough information to
analyze and explain.
3. Guidelines about how to act in similar
situations and which
people to trust, collaborate with, or
avoid.
The babushki are ruthless in stating their opinions about
all
such issues that affect their daily lives. Many of those
issues
may be trivial on a grand scale, but they can be critical
for
their village or neighborhood.
We have had a lot of useful
"gossip" and information on this list,
but I agree with Ron that we need
to develop a more effective
way to transfer the good ideas into
action.
John
___________________________________________________________________
Focuses
on the benefits from gossiping. Gossip in newspaper columns;
Primary
function of gossip; Gossip among preteens. INSET: The high-
tech
grapevine....
"For a real understanding of our social environment,
gossip is
essential," agrees Jack Levin, Ph.D., professor of sociology
and
criminology at Boston's Northeastern University and coauthor
of
_Gossip: The Inside Scoop_. "Its primary function is to help
us
make social comparisons...."
In the more than two dozen on-line
rumors Bordia looked at for study of
how rumors are transmitted via
computer, he found that "conversations"
have a typical pattern: First,
they're tentatively introduced,
generating, a flurry of requests for
information. Next, facts and
personal experiences get shared and the
group tries to verify the
rumor's veracity. Finally, the group breaks up
or moves on to another topic.
C. Lee Harrington, a professor of
sociology at Miami University in
Ohio, who's conducted her own
cybergossip survey, concurs. She says chat
room enthusiasts, like
ordinary gossipers, "attempt to establish the
veracity of the information
they're sharing through references to
outside sources. They rely on
secondary sources, refer to personal
knowledge and relationships, or, as
is the case with entertainment
gossip, claim to have direct connections
to it, accounting for their
'inside information.'"
_________________________________________________________________
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
|