Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed. I agree with both Leo and Simon here, and want to emphasize their points; this is a very common situation and there are corresponding, also very common mistakes, in re-use.

In particular:

1. NAICS is presented as a taxonomy but in fact does not have consistent taxonomic semantics.

2. In particular, the parent/child relationship does not have consistent semantics. Another way to put this is that it is subject to "semantic drift" -- it may start out as a subclass relationship at one level, change to something partitive further down. I don't recall how widely this drift ranges for NAICS, but it is very common to see drift across a handful of different parent/child relationships within a single "taxonomy" or "classification system".  Besides subclass and partOf (and, indeed, different subProperties of partOf), it's common to find such relations as subtopic, instanceOf, ownedBy, locatedIn, and variants of controlledBy all mixed into what appears to be a single hierarchy.

3. This has particular consequence for automated reuse in ontological form. In the best cases, the semantic drift is predictable by level. If there is some pattern similar to what Simon attempts to identify, then at least a script or tool can utilize the level to determine what parent/child relationship to assert. That's the best case. In other cases there is no consistent pattern like this, or at least none that can be readily identifiable. That means that tools such as the TBC spreadsheet importer can turn the artifact into syntactic OWL, but only the most undefined relationship, something like BT/NT, can be asserted automatically. If subClass or any of the other more meaningful relations is used, much of the resulting OWL will wrong.

4. However, the existence of such artifacts is often a sign that the system in question would be better modeled with an ontology. If the developers had a need to capture such a variety of hierarchical relationships, it is very likely that having those relationships made explicit would be of benefit to at least some users. Most ways of using the artifact for automated information processing will be undermined by the inconsistency.

5. These observations brought to you by quite a few experiences with the process and/or results of turning users' "taxonomies" and  "ontologies," as well as expert-developed and widely used "taxonomies" and "ontologies" in users' domains (such as NAICS, MeSH, CheBI, and many others) into usable ontologies for application purposes. It's often worth it, but the transformation to explicit semantics can be non-trivial (and require verification of the resulting model to make sure that the varying semantics have been interpreted correctly.

Best,

Amanda

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We discovered the same kind of thing with the old UNSPSC business product and service taxonomy in 2000 (now it is refactored and I don’t really know its current state). It was originally inconsistently developed (e.g., some disjunction class node names [AorB], some conjunction class node names [CandD]), and the entire 9k+ classes warped into 5-6 levels by fiat. Useful for harvesting, but not directly as given for an ontology subclass backbone. Plus, it was originally developed for a kind of accounting rollup for businesses, then later used for business-to-business e-commerce, and suffered some in the latter use. So we had to build ontologies that mapped to the UNSPC, but couldn’t count on its structure.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:46 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology

 

[Moved from the ontolog-summit list - entire post left below for context. ]

 

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: 

NAICS is a taxonomy.  It only defines classes of industrial activity.  Conceptually, the NAICS classifications form a hierarchy under 'subclassOf'.  In the view of the NAICS, the instances of the classifications are 'industrial activities'. 

 

This is not strictly correct.  The NAICS classifications at different levels refer to different types of things, and the relationship between sub-ordinate and super-ordinate terms are not consistently sub/supertype. 

 

From the census bureau FAQ, §5.  [reference numbers added]

 

NAICS is a 2- through 6-digit hierarchical classification system, offering five levels of detail. Each digit in the code is part of a series of progressively narrower categories, and the more digits in the code signify greater classification detail. [1] The first two digits designate the economic sector, [2] the third digit designates the subsector, [3] the fourth digit designates the industry group, [4]  the fifth digit designates the NAICS industry, and [5] the sixth digit designates the national industry. The 5-digit NAICS code is the level at which there is comparability in code and definitions for most of the NAICS sectors across the three countries participating in NAICS (the United States, Canada, and Mexico). The 6-digit level allows for the United States, Canada, and Mexico each to have country-specific detail. A complete and valid NAICS code contains six digits.

 

[1] The first two digits designate the economic sector

 

The referent of any two digit code is an |Economic Sector|. 

 

[2] the third digit designates the subsector

 

The referent of any three digit code is an |Economic Subsector|. 

 

It is possible that |Economic Subsector| and |Economic Sector| are subclasses. 

However, the relationship between the two digit code and the three digit code  is not a subclass relationship; the relationship is partitive. 

 

For example, 

   [Code 11] (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting) is an |Economic Sector|

   [Code 111] (Crop Production) is an |Economic Subsector|

   [Code 112] (Animal Production and Aquaculture) is an |Economic Subsector| 

 

  [Code 111] is part of [Code 11]

  [Code 112] is part of [Code 12]

 

[3] the fourth digit designates the industry group 

 

The referent of any four digit code is an |Industry group|.

 

The relationship between |Economic Subsector| and |Industry group| would also appear to be partitive. 

 

[Code 1111] (Oilseed and Grain Farming) is an |Industry group|.

[Code 1112] (Vegetable and Melon Farming) is an |Industry group|. 

 

 

[Code 1112] is part of [Code 111].

 

[4]  the fifth digit designates the NAICS industry

 

There referent of any five digit code is an |Industry|.

An |Industry| is part of an |Industry group|. 

 

[Code 11121] (Vegetable and Melon Farming) is an |Industry|.

 

[Code 11121] is part of [Code 1112].

 

Note that the labels for 1112 and 11121 are the sa

 

 [5] the sixth digit designates the national industry.

A six digit code refers to a  |National Industry| - possibly at a finer level of sub-division than was agreed on internationally.  

|National Industry| is a subclass of |Industry| 

The relationship between the five and six digit code could be generic.

[Code 111211] (Potato Farming) is a |National Industry|

[Code 111219] (Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming) is a |National Industry|. 

[Code 112119] is a sub-class of [Code 11211].

If the codes are taken to be Terms in a controlled vocabulary, we have 

111219. Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming BTG

11121.  Vegetable and Melon Farming BTP

1112. Vegetable and Melon Farming BTP 

111. Crop Production BTP 

11. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting.

Using the  BT relation as including BTP and BTG, and as being transitive, we can conclude that

 Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming  BT Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ludger,

I can't speak for Shoebottom's model, and I will leave that to him.

NAICS is a taxonomy of industrial production activities and/or products.  It was developed (and is maintained) by statistical organizations for the purpose of producing standard "nature of industry" labels for various statistical measures.  Those measures include total production, trade balance, economic indicators, labor statistics, business census statistics, etc.  The whole idea is that a standard set of classifications, together with voluntary classification by businesses of their own activities, allows statistics created by different agencies to be comparable.  You can compare workforce statistics by industry with total industrial output by industry, because they use the same classifications of "by industry".

NAICS is a taxonomy.  It only defines classes of industrial activity.  Conceptually, the NAICS classifications form a hierarchy under 'subclassOf'.  In the view of the NAICS, the instances of the classifications are 'industrial activities'.  The activities consume resources, involve workforce personnel, and produce products and services.  A given organization may be engaged in activities in one or more different NAICS activity classifications, and it may or may not be able to align its business units with these classifications.  It may be easy to relate some activities to locations, when the activity takes place in a physical plant, for example, or more difficult, when one talks about supply statistics or financial activities.   So, the 10-employee firm that is Johnson's Tool Works may have one location and ascribe all its business activities to the Tool & Die category, while a firm like General Electric has activities in 6 different NAICS classifications and 204 different lo
 cations.

NAICS is an excellent example of designing an ontology for a purpose.

If my purpose in creating a NAICS ontology is to support the modeling of economic statistics, I will want to have properties like "activity classification employs workforce size" or "activity classification produces percentage of GDP". Statistics are gathered for the leaf classifications and "rolled up" for the higher-level classifications.   To make that possible in OWL, the NAICS activity classifications must be A-boxes!   There is only one OWL Class:  NAICS_Classification, and it is the domain of all those statistical properties.

If OTOH my purpose in creating a NAICS ontology is to classify actual industry activity objects or participating organizations, then the NAICS Classifications should probably be T-boxes, because the individual organizations will be the A-boxes that are instances of the NAICS Classes.

If I want to do both -- capture economic statistics by classification and classify organizations and activities -- I need to make a "meta-model" of sorts, in which both the NAICS Classifications and the Organizations, Activities, etc., are all A-boxes.  Then I need OWL properties like:  Organization participates_ in NAICS Classification, and Activity is_an_instance_of NAICS Classification, and Classification is_a_subtype_of Classification.  That is, I need to model the individual classifications as A-boxes, so as to assign statistics to each, as above, but I also want to capture the instance to classification relationships of organizations and activities.  So I make OWL properties that are "instance of" and "subclass of" between those A-boxes.  And yes, the effect of this is that I lose the ability of the tableaux reasoners to infer classifications in the usual way.  But, I can define the "subtype of" property between NAICS Classification A-boxes in terms of the "instance of"
  property for NAICS Classifications, and I can state the transitivity axiom for is_subtype_of (NAICS Classification, NAICS_Classification).  (The explicit modeling of concepts that would otherwise be part of the OWL language itself, like instance_of and subtype_of, is similar to the OMG "metamodel" concept -- a model of a modeling language, which is why I used the term.)

Now, in ISO Common Logic (CLIF), I can declare the NAICS Classifications to be predicates (like OWL Classes) and at the same time use them as objects (instances) in statistical relations.  But if I do things like that, it requires a much more sophisticated reasoner, and creates the possibility that some desired inferences take forever if we don't set up the ontology just right.  If I constrain the usage to nothing more complex than the OWL work-around above, it probably works well.

All of this comes down to the fact that an ontology is a representation of concepts that has been engineered for a purpose.  What we see from the above is that the same concepts can/must be differently engineered for different purposes.

-Ed


--
Edward J. Barkmeyer                     Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263             Work:   +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263             Mobile: +1 240-672-5800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-

> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ludger Jansen
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:09 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>

> 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:

> > 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/

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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)