Pat, (01)
The OOR (Open Ontology Repository) initiative already (since it's
announcement on 2009.02.19 - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_02_19 )
has a sandbox version of the repository available to everyone
interested (based on the NCBO BioPortal implementation, and hosted at
CIM3). (02)
Please try it! ... This OOR sandbox is at: http://oor-01.cim3.net/ (03)
Regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The COSMO is already on-line at http://micra.com/COSMO/cosmo.owl.
> We can add a copy or a pointer to the repository, or both. The COSMO is in
> rapid flux still, since it has not been completely supplemented with
> representations of all words in the Longman defining vocabulary. At the
> rate it is going, that will take over a month, maybe over two.
>
> I think that, as I mentioned before, to serve the purpose of a common
> foundation ontology any candidate will necessarily be in flux as new
> requirements for primitives are identified when new domains are linked to
> the FO, or new eyes scan it for problems. So being unstable is to be
> expected and will need to be accounted for in the early stages. It is
> likely that the need for changes will diminish over time - that was the
> experience of the Cyc BaseKB.
>
> As soon as a site is identified, I will put the latest version there.
>
> 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 Azamat
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:58 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Cc: John F. Sowa
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:
>>
>> JS: "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. ...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."
>> Agree. But we need to form a common core now. I doubt that you can
>> organize
>> all the ontology content holders even within a month, mental inertia is
>> worse than physical inertia. Anybody could join at any stage latter, or
>> when
>> he/she thinks ready.
>>
>> JS: "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."
>> That's might be so. Then we have to keep the standard ontology project
>> as
>> long as possible as a open international enterprise, mostly relying on
>> our
>> own effort, skill, initiative, leadeship, and intelligence.
>>
>> JS: " 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."
>> Generally, agree. But the idea started as SUO, did it? Never mind. As
>> Matthew observed a chosen official URL could be tightly linked to the
>> Ontolog Forum's URL. But its mostly important to head off the confusion
>> of
>> ontologies at the Tower of Ontology, when identities lost and
>> distinctions
>> blended. This special initiative is better have its special place on
>> the
>> Web.
>>
>> JS: "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."
>> If there are no any principal objections from other potential members,
>> we
>> could consider the domain name under the public ownreship of the Group.
>> http://www.standardontology.org
>>
>> JS: "It would also be useful to establish a non-profit organization
>> with the
>> same (or similar name) that could accept nontaxable donations."
>> Right. Is any principal objection against its designation as:
>> International
>> Group for Ontology and Semantic Standards (IGOSS)?
>> Please suggestions or corrections or confirmations.
>>
>> JS: "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."
>> Again, agree. As a start, I am ready to post the SOS (Standard
>> Ontology
>> System): Top Classes and Meanings, as a sample of initial contribution
>> to
>> the common core. Any other concrete suggestions? Patrick, a core COSMO
>> to
>> start? Or they come later? Thanks.
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|