This is great.
A good approach and a clear call to action.
Does anyone want to put a link to an ontology on the wiki with a 'short'
explanation of how it meets some real world need, a description of the
domain, references to any ontologies that are based on it (in any way)
and references to any applications that are known to use it or any
standards that it describes.
Licensing details could be added. (01)
Get your favourites in early!
Make new friends by recommending their ontologies! (02)
Ron (03)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rich,
>
> No. We did not agree.
>
> > Since John Sowa and Pat Hayes (and possibly Ian Bailey) seem
> > to agree on the following ultra high level ontology, perhaps
> > we should proclaim it an "Initial Ontic Standard" that can
> > be built upon:
>
> -Thing
> -Individual
> -Type
> -Powertype.... etc.
>
> I was expressing a feeling of being distinctly underwhelmed.
>
> If you take any version of FOL and add some basic mathematical
> theories, including versions of set theory, mereology, etc.,
> you'd have all that plus a great deal more.
>
> My basic proposal, which I have been repeating in different ways
> for many years, is extremely simple:
>
> 1. Set up a registry for ontologies with minimal requirements
> for contributions and some basic reviewing for competence.
>
> 2. Emphasize that ontologies should be constructed from modules,
> and multiple use and reuse of other modules in the registry
> should be strongly encouraged.
>
> 3. The sequence of uses and reuses would automatically create
> a generalization hierarchy of ontologies -- i.e., if ontology
> X incorporates the module Y, then Y is a generalization of X.
>
> 4. Any collection of modules that are frequently used and reused
> would be high up in the generalization hierarchy, and they
> would also be prime candidates for being "canonized" as
> the recommended subset for further use and reuse.
>
> This is very simple. It doesn't require major funding to get
> started. If a significant number of good modules are widely
> used and reused, they would become a de facto standard -- and
> a prime candidate for someday becoming a de jure standard.
>
> Anybody who had developed their favorite ontology would be
> encouraged to submit it. Instead of having some self-appointed
> experts decide on the best approach a priori, the developers
> who actually do the work would decide which modules they found
> the most useful.
>
> This approach reflects the natural way that people decide
> which tools and notations to adopt for their projects.
>
> 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)
|