Why not just start it here.
The web site exists. It is easy to use (relatively). and Peter seems to
be pretty generous in the use of the space. (01)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Ali and Azamat,
> AH> Just for posterity -- I don't mean to deprecate the idea of
> > foundation ontologies. They are very useful. My intuition is
> > just highly sceptical that a (useful / expressive) unique one
> > exists. By all means though, in the spirit of scientific
> > discovery people ought to investigate it.
> I share your concerns. Any ontology with detailed axioms will
> be incompatible with many legitimate uses that require different
> axioms for one application or another. For example, if we put
> all the well established laws of physics into one giant theory,
> it would be inconsistent with every branch of engineering, since
> they all make different approximations for different purposes.
> On the other hand, if you took the common generalization of
> all those engineering applications, you would have a theory
> that contained very few axioms. It would be little more
> than a systematic terminology plus the various relationships
> among units of measure for all the physical quantities. Yet
> that generalization could be very useful for many purposes.
> For those reasons, I believe that the common generalization
> of all the foundation ontologies will have very few axioms.
> It will primarily consist of type-subtype and part-whole
> relations that are true by definition. Immediately below
> that level will be several branches for different kinds of
> specializations. One of the branches would be "pure" physics,
> which would be too precise and too detailed for most practical
> applications. Other branches would contain any systems of
> conventions and approximations that anyone might find useful.
> AA> 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;
> Please drop the word 'minus'. Any consistent ontology that
> anyone has ever found useful for any purpose should be in the
> hierarchy. Many talented people have contributed to those
> efforts, and their products are being used.
> Remember that IBM beat Univac primarily because IBM supported
> a smooth migration path from punch-card methods to modern computers.
> Any repository for ontologies must accommodate *all* useful versions.
> It must also show migration paths (generalizations, specializations,
> and lateral variations) from one useful theory to another by means
> of the common core.
> AA> To define the strategic goal of the Project: standard
> > ontology framework? unified modeling framework? ontology
> > and semantic standards? semantic interoperability? open
> > ontology library?
> All of those are legitimate uses, and they should be supported.
> The core of the hierarchy should be open and free, but it should
> contain links to proprietary ontologies of any kind.
> AA> 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.
> Something like that will be necessary. But if you bring the
> big boys in too soon, they will take it over and appoint a
> committee of their own "experts" to manage it.
> AA> 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
> That is certainly a good domain name.
> Since this idea has been developed through ontolog forum, we should
> continue our association with ontolog forum and continue discussions
> here. Peter Yim and others have done a lot of hard work to establish
> this forum and the related activities. That is a great advantage.
> But I agree that hosting the results of the efforts on a web site
> with the name standardontology.org would be a very big plus. It
> would also be useful to establish a non-profit organization with
> the same (or similar name) that could accept nontaxable donations.
> But it is also important to get some useful technical material
> to post on the web site before bringing in large numbers of
> members -- especially corporate members.
> 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/
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 (04)