To: | "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Peter Yim <yimpp1@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:49:17 -0800 (PST) |
Message-id: | <1359125357.7413.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
(... moving the following exchange back to this thread. =ppy) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA) <George.Thomas1@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:11 AM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [Semediawiki-user] New SMW Quick Reference To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks Edmon! -g On 1/24/13 3:11 PM, "Edmon Begoli" <ebegoli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >George, > >I like UMBEL accessibility (RDF formats and web service end points), >but I am bit concerned about the proposed scope in the words of the a >founder (from UMBEL mailing list) >and its applicability for serious reasoning tasks. >This is in response to a question why no events in UMBEL: > > >Well, it may be a serious drawback, but it is on purpose and a >part of the UMBEL design. > >UMBEL was merely designed to be a lightweight subject reference >structure for what Web content "is about". The selection of the >20 K concepts and use of SKOS was also based on this purpose. > >Thus, there is no intent for UMBEL to be a "comprehensive" >ontology with event and "parts of" vocabulary, among other >possible design choices. > >The overlap with Cyc is maintained to provide a pathway for those >that want more expressiveness. > >Think of UMBEL as a subject topic "router" for the Internet, but >one that also provides reach through to Cyc. If neither of these >purposes meet your needs, you likely need to look for another >ontology. > >Regards, Mike (Bergman) // ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA)" <George.Thomas1@xxxxxxx> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open upper onotology I'd be curious what you (all) think of Gist [1] and UMBEL [2], and what usage experiences anyone may have. George [1] http://semanticarts.com/gist/ [2] http://umbel.org/ On 1/23/13 8:51 PM, "Edmon Begoli" <ebegoli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Dear ontologists, > >What are some upper ontologies that are actively maintained, open (vs. >proprietary like Cyc) >and that might have a web R/W interface that you would recommend? > >Thank you, >Edmon _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] [Semediawiki-user] New SMW Quick Reference, Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA) |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open upper onotology, Aldo Gangemi |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open upper onotology, Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA) |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open upper onotology, Obrst, Leo J. |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |