[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:49:01 -0400
Message-id: <4A0A351D.3000006@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat and Azamat,    (01)

I am amazed that we somehow fell into a violent agreement.    (02)

PC> Surprisingly, I can't find anything in what John has said
 > to disagree with.  In particular, I agree that all plausible
 > paths to enhancing the utility of ontologies should be explored
 > - and better yet, funded. I think that the anticipated economic
 > benefits easily justify the costs.    (03)

We can do a great deal with minimal funding.    (04)

PC> On the issue of a repository - yes, I think that's a good idea.
 > The ontology Summit in 2008 started work on that, but a specific
 > project hasn't been funded and as a consequence is moving very slowly.    (05)

It's much easier to specify a useful framework than to fill it with
content.  But there are a lot of people who have content, and if we
define a suitable framework and have a place to store content, we
can begin by providing a kind of "facebook" for ontologies.    (06)

PC> I think Mike Gruninger has put in a lot of work, but I am not
 > aware if a specific site has been identified.    (07)

We could begin with Peter's site, which we've been filling up
with email.  Some ontology content would be even better.    (08)

PC> I do think that a common FO is one of the more promising
 > possibilities, without deprecating any of the others.    (09)

That's fine with me.  I promise that I won't deprecate the goal
of working toward an FO -- provided that we also accept whatever
lower level domain ontologies that people want to post on the site.    (010)

PC> So I suggest a project to develop one with a large enough
 > community of users.    (011)

We can begin by providing a one-stop shopping center for open
source ontologies of any kind.  That should draw a fair community
of users, contributors, and testers.    (012)

JFS>> The best we can do is to organize all of them in a common
 >> framework and let the researchers and developers use them, test them,
 >> relate them, combine them, extend them, refine them, and demonstrate
 >> how and whether they can  support the goals we would like to achieve.
 >> Do you know anything better we could do?    (013)

AA> No, I have nothing at this time. I have to agree with your very
 > sensible and feasable proposal. Just one wish, to hurry with its
 > implementation, otherwise we have  a bad/good chance to suffer the
 > unwelcome "standards" imposed by self-appointed standards bodies.    (014)

Great!  Then let's do it.    (015)

Our first task should be to pull together the various suggestions that
people have proposed in this forum and organize them into a coherent
statement of requirements and proposed formats and methodology for
meeting those requirements.    (016)

John    (017)

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    (018)

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