[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:37:55 -0500
Message-id: <4990A233.3070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Pat,    (01)

I see the following tasks and questions as being in the scope of the 
upcoming Ontology Summit
Towards Ontology-based Standards:    (02)

- Design ontologies that formalize concepts within existing standards    (03)

- Ontological analysis of existing standards (i.e. identify potential 
and semantic ambiguities) and the subsequent use of ontologies to 
reengineer existing standards    (04)

- Can existing ontologies be used to support the integration of existing 
If not, what ontologies are needed?    (05)

- What ontologies should we be designing to lay the foundations for 
emerging standards
and standards that are are currently under development?    (06)

The standards within this scope are often in specific industrial domains
(e.g. STEP and other SC4 standards) rather than the upper-level arena.
On the other hand, OMG efforts such as SVBR would also be in the scope,
and these are more general.    (07)

- michael    (08)

Pat Hayes wrote:    (09)

> Umm... I am confused (and I apologize for missing the telecon that 
> might have unconfused me.) The topic for the current Summit mixes the 
> topics of 'ontology' and 'standards'. But this can be understood in 
> several rather different ways. 
> (1) Using ontologies as a tool in the business of writing standards. 
> Here, 'writing standards' is a broadly conceived topic area, and the 
> standards might refer to almost anything. For example, someone might 
> argue that the business of writing standards for future high-speed USB 
> communication protocols would benefit from the participants writing 
> and using ontologies, or perhaps a particular ontology. 
> (2) Defining, or approaching the definition of, a standard ontology. 
> This would presumably be some variety of 'unified upper level' or 
> 'comprehensive' ontology, or perhaps a collection of related 
> ontologies, etc.., of the kind developed as part of the Cyc project or 
> the SUMO effort, or as proposed by Pat Cassidy or Azamat in previous 
> postings.
> (3) Standardizing the business of writing ontologies themselves. This 
> would presumably link with our previous focus on ontology 
> repositories, where a strong theme emerged of "quality control" for 
> ontologies, and several nascent ontology-writing methodologies, or at 
> least collections of good-practice rules and maxims, seemed to be 
> visible in the general intellectual murk. 
> If I follow Azamat and Ravi's messages, below, they seem (?) to be 
> talking about (2), but I'm not sure that this is the intended 
> interpretation for the Summit. 
> Pater, can you confirm/clarify?
> Pat Hayes
>    (010)

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    (011)

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