Dear PatC, (01)
> The proposal for a common FO includes the need to develop example uses,
> as
> part of the project itself. I have previously suggested that it would
> be
> helpful to create a public demonstration of database integration via a
> common ontology. (02)
[MW] This is what ISO 15926 is all about. See:
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/STEPintoTheRealWorld.PDF (03)
This example is even more than 10 years old! (04)
> But the DB and demo systems have to be publicly
> inspectable, and the DB/ontology projects I know of are all
> confidential. I
> have previously inquired on this forum if anyone knows of publicly
> available
> existing databases that have some overlapping data and would be
> suitable as
> a test case for at least the database integration function. Thus far I
> have
> not heard of any candidates. Some federal DB's should be publicly
> releasable, so perhaps this tactic can be tried; If anyone has a
> suggestion
> for a specific database, I would be quite interested to hear about it. (05)
[MW] Well I would suggest you ask POSC Caesar and or the ADI project (ADI is
Accelerated Deployment of ISO 15926).
http://www.posccaesar.org/
http://www.fiatech.org/projects/idim/iso15926.html (06)
> I
> have seen the "movie database" used in some projects, but don't know of
> any
> other DB that has enough overlap with movies to provide an interesting
> demo.
> This doesn't mean that there are no DB's that could be usefully
> integrated -
> I know of a few from my own very limited experience. But they are all
> proprietary or otherwise confidential. A demo needs something public.
> Perhaps a couple of made-up DBs could be used, but that might well be
> unconvincing, or less convincing than a demo based on existing real-
> world
> info. (07)
[MW] The good thing about ISO 15926 is that it is a success. It has already
been deployed in industrial situations and has paid for its development
costs many times over. (08)
What I am not so clear about is why you would want to develop another one.
ISO 15926 has taken almost 20 years to get to where it is. Why would it be
better to develop another one? (which at best would probably take 10 years
to get to the same stage, assuming you were smart enough to learn from our
mistakes) when there already is something that does what you want. (09)
Note: The assumption here is that what you want is data integration. If you
want to codify "common sense" then look at CYC and not ISO 15926. For other
things you might want to look at SUMO or DOLCE etc.
>
> Another point that could be relevant is: that developing a *common*
> ontology
> by a consortium process (not a proprietary one like Cyc) that has
> enough
> functionality to support reasoning at close to the human level is
> something
> that has never been done, and is also qualitatively different from
> other
> kinds of standards development issues. (010)
[MW] I would therefore not propose ISO 15926 as a candidate for this. But I
do not see what the benefits are for this, beyond pure research interest of
the cosmology kind, in any timescale that would produce an ordinary
investment opportunity. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (013)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|