Ron and All, (01)
> [RC] 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. (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)
|