Hi Deborah & Tom, (01)
Logistics issue here ... (02)
Since this thread is OntologySummit2007 specific (while admitted
the discourse has a much broader implication), may I suggest you
continue the dialog on the [ontology-summit] list instead. (I
have it on both list now. Either one of you, or anyone else,
could pick this up and 'reply' to the message with the
[ontology-summit] prefixed subject line, and take it over there. (03)
Thanks. =ppy (04)
P.S. Also, Deborah, in view of our Ontolog IPR policy
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32),
could you eliminate your message footer, please.
-- (05)
Deborah MacPherson wrote Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:25:13 -0400:
> RE: OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response>
> input from TomGruber <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TomGruber>
> (Y5I)
>
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Survey/TomGruber#nidY5I> (06)
> If one option to address Ontology Problems (3c) in Corresponding
> Solutions (3d) is to create:
> "- an open, well-maintained clearinghouse for ontologies and related
> products and services that are enabled by them." (07)
> The clearinghouse seems like a clean, idealized place made from a
> combination of specifications, community databases, similar philosophies
> and other components of functional ontologies. (08)
> However, because peoples interests and investigations are so diverse, it
> would probably be messy and chaotic. The most straightforward way for
> such a clearinghouse to be well-maintained could be "specifying the
> constructs for representing domains of discourse or knowledge". That
> way, clearinghouse contributors could easily use domains to place or
> register their ontology in relation to similar ontologies, products and
> services. Potential ontology consumers without special training or
> previous knowledge about all the ontologies available, could begin
> looking in their own domain for ontologies, products, and services most
> likely suited to their particular communication and computational goals. (09)
> What has me wondering is - what if it was also possible to develop "a
> clear binding of ontologies to products and services so that people can
> find the ontology based on their functional requirements, rather than
> the domain of discourse."? (010)
> What would hold similar functions together or create distinctions
> between them once they are more abstract than a domain of discourse or
> knowledge? How would contributors register and explain how their
> ontologies, products and services can be used? How would potential
> consumers know where to start looking by function alone? Would an ideal
> goal be to plug and play until you found or put together a system that
> works with your data and processing needs? (011)
> The other nagging question is "Please do not talk about ontology as a
> /method/. This confuses things. Ontology is never a way of doing things.
> It is at the very least some kind of document or knowledge
> representation or database. If one thinks of an ontology as a
> specification, then the methods used to create or apply it can be
> understood in terms of design or engineering methodologies." (012)
> But if functions alone could be used as way of understanding, aren't
> these very methods and ways of doing things necessary to express what
> the functions can do? If both domains and methods were removed as
> organizing factors of a well-designed, well-run clearinghouse, what is
> the clear binding "made of"? (013)
> Do goals of the clearinghouse include surprise discoveries in "semantic
> mashups" and streamlining similar functions regardless of their original
> use? (014)
> If so, what is missing from or unnecessary in current forms of
> specifications, knowledge representation and databases to get from the
> state of the art now to establishing and maintaining such an idealized
> place?
>
> Debbie
>
>
>
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Survey/TomGruber#nidY64>
> (015)
> *************************************************
> Deborah L. MacPherson <http://www.deborahmacpherson.com>
> <http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=153&DID=5147> CSI
> <http://www.csinet.org/> CCS, AIA <http://www.aia.org/>
> WDG Architecture PLLC <http://www.wdgarch.com>
> Accuracy&Aesthetics <http://www.accuracyandaesthetics.com>
>
> The content of this email may contain private
> confidential information. Do not forward, copy,
> share, or otherwise distribute without explicit
> written permission from all correspondents.
>
> ************************************************** (016)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: 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 Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (018)
|