[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Timothy Schoechle <timothy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:00:04 -0400
Message-id: <49DF5EF4.9050805@xxxxxxxx>
Gian Piero Zarri wrote:    (01)

> Summarising ten pages into few lines, we can say that, by comparing the 
> upper levels of OpenCyc, SUMO, DOLCE and the top-level of the CG 
> hierarchy, the formal and conceptual differences are so evident that any 
> form of "merging" is very difficult to envisage.     (02)

If this is indeed evident, the ISO study period should result in a 
report that there is no clear consensus on any useful set of concepts.    (03)

The U.S. request for a "study period" was based on the perception that 
there are three camps:
  - group 1 believes that one of these ontologies is clearly useful the 
others can be aligned with it (group 1 has 3 subgroups ;-)).
  - group 2 believes that, with respect to some basic concept set, the 
ontologies are not so distant that they cannot be jointly reconciled.
  - group 3 believes as Gian Piero does, that these ontologies are 
fundamentally incompatible.    (04)

Prudence dictates that you put these groups in a room and make them 
write a consensus paper.  If they prove to be unable to do so, there is 
no useful consensus that might lead to a viable standard.  But it is 
necessary to ensure that all the groups are properly represented by 
knowledgeable individuals, and that at least some part of the 
constituency is capable of unbiased judgement.    (05)

So rather than trying to do the work of the study group on this 
exploder, we should work on getting expert participating representatives 
from our national bodies.  Those who feel strongly about this, consider 
themselves experts, and have adequate support for their time and travel, 
are strongly encouraged to volunteer.    (06)

The JTC1/SC32 website (http://www.jtc1sc32.org/) is utterly useless with 
respect to identifying your national body contacts (it shows you a set 
of flags for the members).  To find that contact information, you must 
ask the SC32 Secretariat:
   sc32-sec@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Dr. Timothy Schoechle, +1 303 443 5490    (07)

Or, if you happen to have credentials in a standards body that has a 
formal liaison to JTC1/SC32, you could be nominated by that body.  That 
includes most JTC1 (information technology) committees, the ISO 
industrial data, financial data, geospatial data and healthcare data 
committees, and the terminology (TC37) and documents (TC46) committees, 
plus OGC, OMG, SWIFT, W3C, and some others.    (08)

-Ed    (09)

Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694    (010)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (011)

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    (012)

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