You keep saying this but you are not doing the basics to move it forward. (01)
If you don't want to do it with this group, say so and quit harping on
it. Find a group that you think is sufficiently visionary to help you
put together the proposal. (02)
If you want to do it with some of the people from this group, then take
a chunk of the wiki and start to frame a proposal.
I am not sure how much support you will get but I am pretty sure that
you will get some good critical comments about where your proposal needs
refinement or better substantiation.
You will not know the level of support and interest in helping you until
you start the process of building the proposal.
You may even find that people who are doubtful about the prospect of
out-cycing Cyc may nonetheless be interested in some part of the work.
You may find that if you clearly identify that you are thinking of
allocating $1,000,000 to a particular area, finance or biology or
transportation, you may get some new supporters who have something to
contribute. This could be existing work product or a team of SME's that
are looking for a way to get an ontology built. (03)
Ron (04)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> One *gentle* dissent here.
> I don't disagree that finding commonalities in a gradual process is
> possible, I just think it is **much too slow** to be a practical tactic. I
> do note that it is the path of least resistance, since it will allow
> everyone currently getting funding to continue doing what they know how to
> do and get funded (and individual academic credit) for it. That tactic
> would gain some credibility if, after all these years of working in that
> direction, there were in fact some local systems developed separately for
> different domains that have successfully interoperated (i.e., allowing
> automated inference from external information to draw useful conclusions).
> Thus far I haven't seen any examples. If there are any, I hope those who
> promote the gradual-lets-find-something-in-common tactic would point us to
> those examples where we can do some testing to see for ourselves just how
> well it works.
>
> But if you are convinced, as I am, that there are substantial *costs* to
> delaying the arrival of an agreed common ontology, or accurately mapped set
> of ontologies, then it makes a great deal of sense to *also* try the
> alternative tactic of directly funding a large group to develop a Foundation
> ontology and extensions that they can use to interoperate, with separately
> developed programs in different domains sharing information useful for
> automated inference. That would be the goal of the common Foundation
> Ontology project I have suggested. It has all the desiderata claimed for
> the gradual process, but would move a lot faster. Alas, it would require as
> much funding for the one project as for thirty separate local projects. I
> just think it will accomplish a lot more for interoperability than thirty
> separate local projects, even if they try some post-hoc mapping.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:47 PM
>> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"
>>
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> EB>> I, for one, would prefer to see the next 5+ years spent on
>>>>
>>>>>> in vivo testing of knowledge engineering concepts, and on
>>>>>> the development of a discipline. Think of it as the medical
>>>>>> experience that will give us some knowledge of the required
>>>>>> properties of your panacea.
>>>>>>
>>>> [MW] I agree. It would be a good idea to know what we are doing
>>>> before doing it on a large scale.
>>>>
>>>> [JFS] I strongly agree. That was the point of my note on
>>>> methodology,
>>>> which emphasizes the distinctions as more fundamental than the
>>>> particular choice of categories.
>>>>
>>> Now that we are all in violent agreement, I would point out that
>>> Amanda
>>> said it first:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The best way to develop an upper ontology may be to let it emerge.
>>>> Pursue
>>>> applied ontology projects as described above, and bring in the
>>>> upper (and
>>>> upper-middle) as they are needed. Bring in higher level concepts as
>>>> you need
>>>> them to connect concepts accross domains, to model the logical
>>>> behavior and
>>>> other characteristics of the domain-specific concepts, to avoid
>>>> redundant
>>>> and oddly-placed assertions on domain concepts that can accurately
>>>> be placed
>>>> on shared concepts shared across the domains.
>>>>
>> Indeed. I would point out that this is almost exactly the Semantic Web
>> vision of how ontologies will evolve through use and re-use of
>> concepts, so that a system of useful concepts with commonly accepted
>> ontological content attached to them will emerge from their use by a
>> community.
>>
>> Even more of us are in violent agreement, it seems.
>>
>> Pat H
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>>> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|