I'll defer to other to answer you on the "statement of work" issue ...
but would like to point out: (02)
Developing an ontology (or a set of standards) is definitely *not* a
part of the Ontolog Charter, as you correctly observed. (03)
That said, Ontolog has (a) spun-off, or (b) incubated or hosted,
other related efforts in its collaborative work environment
(Ontolog-CWE) - ref.
You might want to check out other earlier exchanges in the archives
specifically relating to this.
See, for example,
... and, of course, a lot of members in this community, are doing work
on developing ontologies on their own, for their employers, or, in
collaboration with others who also happen to be Ontolog members (...
but, independent of the Ontolog community.) (06)
Therefore, the SOW you are expecting may not show up here at all ... (07)
Regards. =ppy (08)
P.S. members are, of course, welcome (and encouraged) to bounce ideas
off one other here, of starting a projects, say, on developing an XXX
ontology, and then go off and do it under a more appropriate setting.
The ongoing conversation about a Unit of Measure ontology that can
serve as an ontology-based standard (which actually starting at the
recent OntologySummit2009, for which Ontolog was a co-organizer, and
the host to the archived knowledge of the event) is a case in point.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM, John Bottoms<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I came to the party late and missed the early discussions on
> how the proposed ontology would be used. So, I went back to
> the wiki page and read the charter, which seems to promote an
> dialog that will "discuss...identify...[and] promote". But
> there is no explicit requirement to create an ontology.
> I guess that wouldn't preclude one being developed so since there
> has been discussion along those lines and that is not discussed in
> the charter, I have to ask if there is a statement of work that
> would result in the creation of an ontology, FO, upper ontology
> or core vocabulary?
> Sorry if this sounds naive, but I had expected the discussion to
> return to the SOW by now, but it hasn't. And, if that is the way
> we should be moving, then why can't this be solved using word and
> expression frequency counts per discipline as has been done
> -John Bottoms
> First Star
> T: 978-505-9878
> 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 (011)