This is a great idea.
I am not sure that I know enough to contribute material but I would
certainly be willing to participate in the editing process. (01)
Ron (02)
Schiffel, Jeffrey A wrote:
> Peter's recent post announcing this: Re: OntologySummit2010: "Creating the
>Ontologists of the Future" Virtual Panel Session-3 - "Training Requirements
>for Ontologists" reminded me of a an earlier thread.
>
> In mid-December, a thread ran with the title cited in the subject line of
>this note. During the exchange of posts, I added this to the discussion:
>
>
>> Rather than first developing the test, instead create an Ontologist Body of
>Knowledge. From it, several items follow, including
>> an aptitude test.
>>
>> The steps in order are these:
>>
>> 1. Build an OBoK.
>> 2. Build a training curriculum.
>> 3. Build a certification test.
>> 4. Build an aptitude test.
>>
>
> I also listed a set of topics, which in a following post, John Sowa shortened
>and clarified to this list:
>
>> 1. Logic: FOL, modal logics, and applied use, such as SQL or DL.
>> 2. Conceptual structures, including graphical tools and formal
>> notations like XML, UML, many others.
>> 3. Tools: ranging from general purpose tools (e.g., databases and
>> Protégé) to specialized ontology tools.
>> 4. General systems theory.
>> 5. Algebraic methods such as trees and digraphs, lattices, and
>> similar group structures, and graph theory.
>> 6. Ontology life cycle: designing an maintaining individual or
>> coupled ontologies.
>> 7. Basic principles of syntax, semantics, semiotics.
>>
>
> Someone else suggested (pardon me, but at the moment, I can't track down who
>it was) that the existing Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBoK)
>process be used as a model. I agree with this; in fact, I participated in the
>development of SWEBoK.
>
> In light of the current Ontology Summit 2010 series, I suggest reviving the
>idea of developing an Ontologist Body of Knowledge, perhaps also leading to a
>aptitude test and a (hesitate to propose) certification test be kept in mind.
>
> Does anyone agree? If so, I would be willing to begin the early work on
>gathering material for an OBoK, to be stored for comment in the Ontolog Forum
>wiki. OBoK development would not start until after the current Summit series
>concludes.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Jeff Schiffel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|