[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology - developing one?

To: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:20:01 -0700
Message-id: <CAGdcwD2ndxQcJtkYCDo2q6binMaXD4CrUqtTKTHJ1MbmmsoA+A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ron and All,    (01)

> [RC] I was hoping that in all of the discussion about OOR that we have at 
> arrived at the point where there is a sense of the metadata that would be 
> by the OOR for each ontology stored in the repo.    (02)

[ppy] indeed ... the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) initiative[1]  has
adopted Ontology Metadata Vocabulary (OMV)[2] as the core reference
for that purpose. A series of workshops [3] is ongoing, to explore the
need for extensions that may be needed as well.    (03)

  [1] see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository    (04)

  [2] see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OMV    (05)

  [3] ref. latest episode of the OOR metadata dialog -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_05_27    (06)

Regards. =ppy
--    (07)

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Ron Wheeler
<rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was hoping that in all of the discussion about OOR that we have at least 
>arrived at the point where there is a sense of the metadata that would be 
>carried by the OOR for each ontology stored in the repo.
> It seems to me that one of the way to scope an ontology on "self Interets" 
>would be to agree on the metadata since we still seem to be wandering around 
>the terms.
> I have never seen an ontology built so I am anxious to see how it is done by 
>the experts.
> - deciding on what terms to define
> - constructing a consensus around the definition of a term
> - building the actual definitions in one or more languages
> I am hoping that it will be very instructive.
> The metatdata should be the least contentious part of the process.
> Ron    (08)

> On 19/08/2011 4:00 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:19 PM Ron Weeler wrote: "Is anyone actually 
>interested in creating a Self Interest Ontology?
> If so, can someone propose a set of metadata that might describe this 
>proposed ontology."
> Better, as a tag cloud as of the Web 2.0. Or, even as the knowledge tags with 
>descriptions, categorizations, classifications, hyperlinks, and hyperdata with 
>semantics, as initiated by Collaborative Search Engines like Jumper 2.0.
>    (09)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AzamatAbdoullaev
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
> The topic indeed needs more focusing and concentration but in the context of 
>ontology, keeping away from politics, economics, history, and all sorts of the 
>mass media's sensations and anecdotes, however amusing it might be. To 
>proceed, the key things are requested, namely:
> To define the domains of self-interests as biological reality, cognitive 
>reality, or social reality.
> To see how the realities are interrelated by actions and activities.
> To specify the system of related concepts as selfishness, altruism, and 
>unselfishness; motivation, need, or drive; morality and immorality; 
>intelligence and knowledge.
> To identify principal agents, forces, causes, and behaviors, interactions and 
>relationships in such realities.
> To perform the ontological cleaning of the enlightened self-interests and 
>unenlightened self-interests; people can only act in their own interests, 
>people consider their needs, desires, and well-being as priorities; people are 
>obliged to help others, people are obliged to pursue national interests, etc.
> To study the effects of greed or unenlightened self-interests or rational 
>selfishness, like the tragedy of commons, when multiple individuals consulting 
>their own self-interests destroy the community, quality of life, common 
>causes, public property, environment, and ecology.
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> PS: Again, the issues like why the mega-rich shed crocodile tears over the 
>plight of America are more relevant to social scientists, psychologists, 
>moralists, politicians, and tax inspectors.
>    (010)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ali Hashemi
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
> Hi Rich,
> I have two comments. One, a meta-observation about keeping the discussion on 
>topic, and the other about your request about how to move forward.
> ...[snip]...    (011)

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    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology - developing one?, Peter Yim <=