JS: Great! Then let's do it.
> 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.
> 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. (01)
That's a great plus. Indeed, for last two decades there have been developed
high-class ontology content, both upper levels and domain ontologies,
standing in a pressing need of an integrative framework. A minus, hope
insignificant, a good willing of all the upper ontology content holders and
the project leaders: CYC, OBO Foundry, DOLCE, West' ISO 15926, NeOn, etc;
For, as we agreed, everybody capable to contribute must be invited. Caveat
or incentive: lack of any of them hardly could stop the project advancement,
but "strength and knowledge power in unity"; more content will facilitate
the project realization, an unprecedented project in the history of science
and technology, i'd say.
Without loosing too much time, I suggest to decide the following issues of
the OPO:
1. Aims and Scopes
2. Strategy&Policy&Procedures
3. Structure and Funding (02)
To define the strategic goal of the Project: standard ontology framework?
unified modeling framework? ontology and semantic standards? semantic
interoperability? open ontology library? (03)
To establish a legal entity:
International Group (Body, Panel) for Ontology and Semantic Standards
(IGOSS) or (IBOSS), including members, corporate and individual, from USA,
EU, and Russia. (04)
To establish a special web portal, like wisely done by the OBO Foundry. I am
ready to share a domain taken: http://www.standardontology.org
The IGOSS activities may scope the special programs:
Ontology Standards and Knowledge Sources (Wikipedia);
Ontology Standards, Metadisciplinary Science and Technology and Common
Research Area;
Ontology Standards and Semantic Interoperability;
Ontology Standards and domain ontologies and modeling languages;
Ontology Standards and Semantic Web Technologies (Language standards, rule
technologies);
Ontology Standards and Industry Standards;
Ontology Standards and Business Process Interoperability. (05)
To specify the sources of public funding, like EC FP7 programs, the US NSF,
NIST, etc.
Azamat Abdoullaev
PS:
Last but not least, to avoid any adverse criticism, like that one
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/west.pdf, but acting as one legal entity for
one big purpose. Any existent upper ontology or general data model,
naturally having conceptual gaps and constructive defects, could be
disproved. After all, this is why we are to integrate our world models, to
obtain consistency and comprehensiveness. (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|