Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open

["Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>]

One could look at the Wikipedia page, which lists the upper/foundation ontologies, but is also an essay/diatribe that you’d have to unpack, and if you are a novice, cannot.

 

There are some upper/foundational ontologies comparisons in the literature, including ours back in 2004/5, which I’ll not cite: searching on these in say, Google, will find most of them. If you can’t find, I’ll provide.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:49 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Recommendation for the most active, recent and open upper onotology

 

(... 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)