> Dear Ed & all
>
> may I enter the discussion with some naive questions?
>
> - Does this NAIClassification distinguish between individuals and classes?
> - Does it distinguish between relations like instanceOf, subclassOf and more
> sophisticated ones like locatedIn?
> - Does it distinguish between activities (Manufacturing) and agents
> (Manufactors)?
>
> I get the impression that not. But from the normative point of view I would
> argue that all questions SHOULD be answered in the affirmative.
>
> One example:
> BS>Bradley Shoebottom can be classed under Fredericton
>
> Not so, I would say: A city is an invidual; nothing can be classed under it.
> There is, however, a class of inhabitants of Fredericton; an individual person
> can be an instance of this class. Or BS is locatedIn Fredericton.
>
> Best
> Ludger
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <
edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ontology Summit 2013 discussion" <ontology-
>
summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
>
> >I obviously don't understand what you are doing.
> >
> >> <Apple>, as an instance of
schema.org/Corporation
> <hasNAICclassification>
> >> instance <334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing> which is an
> instance
> >> of class <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing>
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with modeling a classification of activities as an
> > instance of NAICClassification.
> > The strange thing is modeling SOME classifications as instances and OTHER
> > classifications, e.g., <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment
> > Manufacturing>, as subclasses.
> > Is not 33411... also ontologically an instance of NAICClassification. It
> > is a classification, is it not?
> > If I assign statistical values, such as "percent of GDP" to NAIC
> > Classifications, how do I assign a "percent of GDP" value to 33411?
> > With the proposed model, I can only assign "percent of GDP" values to leaf
> > classifications.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-
> >>
summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bradley Shoebottom
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:17 PM
> >> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >>
> >> Ed,
> >>
> >> I used the NAIC myself about 4 years ago to classify a particular segment
> >> of
> >> the NB economy.
> >>
> >> But from an ontological perspective, organizations should not show up as
> >> a
> >> child of a particular activities class, but rather have an association to
> >> the
> >> bottommost item (instance) listed for a particular tree. I can see how
> >> the
> >> NAIC was used as a simple drop down taxonomy.
> >>
> >> Organizations are organizations who do an activity that yes can be
> >> classified,
> >> but it is improper to put them under an activity philosophically. It
> >> would be
> >> like me saying:
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom can be classed under Fredericton (the city I live in)
> >> in a
> >> list of Canadian Cities organized by county, then Province then nation. I
> >> am
> >> not really a city, rather I am a Frederictonian which is semantically
> >> different.
> >> Frederictonian implies a person with residency.
> >>
> >> Using this excerpt from the NAIC.
> >>
> >> <Apple>, as an instance of
schema.org/Corporation
> <hasNAICclassification>
> >> instance <334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing> which is an
> instance
> >> of class <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing>
> >>
> >> <Apple> also <hasNAICclassification> instance <334210> as a child of
> >> <33421
> >> Telephone Apparatus Manufacturin>g. Apple is not classed as the
> >> broader <3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing> because that
> >> would imply they make radios and TVs.
> >>
> >> 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
> >> 3341 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
> >> 334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
> >> 334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment
> >> Manufacturing
> >> 3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33421 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
> >> 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
> >> 33422 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
> >> Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
> >> Communications
> >> Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33429 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >>
> >> After working through this thought process, yes, I can simplify this to a
> >> simple
> >> rdf class structure with instances being companies instead of the
> >> activities,
> >> but my tool set still can't easily import the excel file and I either
> >> need a script
> >> or many enter 2000+ classes and arrange them. I just did a time estimate
> >> and
> >> it would take 20 seconds per entry or 12 hours in total.
> >>
> >> I can do this in my free time over the next 2-3 weeks.
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom
> >> Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
> >> Phone:
(506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free:
(800) 363-3358
> >> Skype: bradley.shoebottom
> >> Email:
bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
www.innovatia.net
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-
> >>
summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:28 PM
> >> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom wrote:
> >>
> >> > Translating the NAIC into rdf is a much bigger job than anticipated.
> >> >
> >> > IT requires that a script be written to distinguish between classes
> >> > and instances (instances are the bottom most number of a tree). I do
> >> > not have this skill.
> >>
> >> Hmm... This takes a particular view of the tree that is somewhat
> >> unexpected.
> >> According to the NAIC documentation, these are all Classes. The
> >> instances
> >> are organizations, practices, etc., that participate in those industrial
> >> activities.
> >> What am I missing?
> >>
> >> -Ed
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I initially thought I could easily pivot the table to create a tree
> >> > and then import, but I do not have those skills in excel.
> >> >
> >> > My tool does not easily allow the creation of classes from the
> >> > spreadsheet. I would be looking at a many day process to develop the
> >> > hierarchy and then populate it with instances.
> >> >
> >> > I am wondering if someone at Reassert is still around that helped
> >> > convert the US data gov info into RDF?
> >> >
> >> > The OmniClass Table 32 has a problem too because many of the Level 2
> >> > title use the same title as in other Level 1 categories. The OmniClass
> >> > code does changes. The definition remains the same. I So I could
> >> > create instances based on the code and when you query the label, you
> >> > would potentially get several and you would have to select the correct
> >> > parent category. Or, I create instances based on the title name and
> >> > include the several codes assigned to the same title with the single
> >> > definition. You would be able to find the proper code you want through
> >> > the options of the parent class. Once you let me know which you
> >> > prefer, it would be easy to implement as my idea would only have the
> >> > Level 1 titles be a class (about 10) and the remaining Level 2-4 to be
> >> > instances using SKOS broader/narrower to define level 2-4. I can
> >> > include
> >> synonyms (skos altLabel) and definitions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bradley Shoebottom
> >> > Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
> >> > Phone:
(506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free:
(800) 363-3358
> >> > Skype: bradley.shoebottom
> >> > Email:
bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >
www.innovatia.net
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-
> >> >
summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MacPherson,
> Deborah
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:04 AM
> >> > To: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Hi Paul
> >> >
> >> > A few years ago I dug into the NAICS codes and there is already a nice
> >> > overlap.
> >> >
> >> > The OmniClass Services table maps over to these codes, see
> >> > [
http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/nbims-us-v2/pdf/NBIMS-
> >> > US2_c2.8.pdf]
> >> >
> >> > OmniClass and NAICS sit right next to each other (alphabetically!) on
> >> > the DoD Products and Services Report in the Business Enterprise
> >> > Architecture 8.1, see
> >> > [
http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> >> > architecture/8.1/delta/term.htm] however please note 10 is current,
> >> > see
> >> > [
http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> >> > architecture/10.0/classic/index.htm]
> >> >
> >> > The Department of Energy DOE Building Energy Performance (BEP)
> >> > Taxonomy also includes both OmniClass and NAICS, see
> >> >
> >>
> [
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/pdfs/doe_building_e
> >> > nergy_performance_taxonomy.pdf]
> >> >
> >> > I'll look back at the Census spreadsheet and try to mash it up with
> >> > some other things, thanks for the link.
> >> >
> >> > Deborah
> >> >
> >> > DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> >> > Specifications and Research
> >> >
> >> > Cannon Design
> >> > 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> >> > Suite 500
> >> > Arlington, VA 22201
> >> >
> >> > Phone:
703.907.2353
> >> > Direct Dial: 2353
> >> >
> >> >
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Cannondesign.com
> >> > Skype debmacp
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-
> >> >
summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pope, Paul Albert
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:21 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Deborah, et al.,
> >> >
> >> > I offer the following (perhaps cursory) info, FYI/FWIW, concerning
> >> > your statement "...a part name or number ... that could be mapped to a
> >> > generic form for broader exchange purposes" and the general interest
> >> > in the "facilities domain."
> >> >
> >> > North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
> >> >
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
> >> > "It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy
> >> > Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada, and Mexico's Instituto Nacional
> >> > de Estadistica y Geografia, to allow for a high level of comparability
> >> > in business statistics among the North American countries."
> >> > I wish this taxonomy was available in OWL or other format; alas, it is
> >> > only(?) available as a spreadsheet:
> >> >
> >>
>
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/reference_files_tools/2012/2012_
> >> > NAICS_Structure.xls
> >> >
> >> > Concerning "Dining and Drinking Spaces", try entering the keyword
> >> > "dining"
> >> > into the search text box in the upper left for "2012 NAICS Search".
> >> > The last code in the list retrieved is "722511 Full-Service
> >> > Restaurants". Click on that link. Not responsible for hunger pangs
> >> > that might result ;-)
> >> >
> >> > B/R,
> >> > Paul Pope, Ph.D.
> >> > Los Alamos National Laboratory
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ontology-summit-
> >> >
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of MacPherson, Deborah
> >> > [
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:56 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Somewhere in this discussion is a problem that is the essence of what
> >> > has been holding up progress in the facilities domain.
> >> >
> >> > There are ways to publish technical requirements or test for
> >> > conformance online for free, and pay (even substantially) to
> >> > participate in the working groups or have voting privileges. For
> >> > example
> >> OGC, W3C.
> >> >
> >> > I can even see being able to own a part name or number within a larger
> >> > communication machine that could be mapped to a generic form for
> >> > broader exchange purposes. For example "13-57 13 15 Dining and
> Drinking
> >> Spaces"
> >> > versus "The Sand Bar and Grille"
> >> >
> >> > Depending on the domain, or need for cross disciplinary discussion,
> >> > many on the IP-protected side have no interest in supporting, or will
> >> > even actively stops progress, on a common model. There is also the
> >> > problem of failed common models that do not work, will not
> accommodate
> >> > different object definitions - from software to software or industry
> >> > model to industry model - without loss of data or functionality.
> >> > Bentley systems has stepped forward in this white
> >> >
> paper<
http://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/docs/bentley_institute/W
> >> > hite _paper_IFC.pdf> on the IFC model to say actually - the emperor
> >> > has no clothes on. See pages 6 and 7 "Round Tripping"
> >> >
> >> > For some reason I think ontologies might be a way these IP-With-Open
> >> > problems might be fixed but maybe I am wrong or wishing for too much.
> >> >
> >> > DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> >> > Specifications and Research
> >> >
> >> > Cannon Design
> >> > 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> >> > Suite 500
> >> > Arlington, VA 22201
> >> >
> >> > Phone:
703.907.2353
> >> > Direct Dial: 2353
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > m>
> >> > Cannondesign.com
> >> > Skype debmacp
> >> >
> >> > From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-
> >> >
summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:25 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Peter R. Benson
> >> > <
Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:
Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >> > Deborah, IP is a real issue. We designed the eOTD to try to resolve
> >> > some of these issues. In a dictionary the IP resides in the
> >> > representation but also in the identifiers or codes as these are always
> >> copyright.
> >> >
> >> > That is not entirely clear; see e.g. SOUTHCO, INC v. KANEBRIDGE
> >> > CORPORATION (
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf
> ),
> >> > where part numbers were found to be not protected (but see also how
> >> > Alito takes care to distinguish Delta Dental )
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> > _______
> >> > Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> >> > Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> >> > summit/
> >> > Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Community Files:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/
wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> > _______
> >> > Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> >> > Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> >> > summit/
> >> > Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Community Files:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/
wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> > _______
> >> > Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> >> > Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> >> > summit/
> >> > Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Community Files:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/
wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _______
> >> Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> >> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> >> summit/
> >> Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Community Files:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> >> Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> bin/
wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _______
> >> Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> >> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> >> summit/
> >> Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Community Files:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> >> Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> bin/
wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> > Msg Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > Subscribe/Config: