Thanks, Peter & breakout-group-Z. (01)
I've posted this to the wiki already for people can provide feedback. (02)
On 4/23/07, Peter F Brown <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Our working group "Z" was scoped this afternoon to examine the "dimensions"
>of the proposed ontology framework.
> We started by agreeing that some sort of "representation" of the "dimensions"
>was needed, particularly as the questions of possible co-variance and/or
>orthogonality between the dimensions was discussed in the session and that the
>dimensions were not "alike" in terms of their relationship with an ontology.
>We decided to create a "concept map" with limited semantics: I use the word
>"depicts" - it is not intended as a specification of a conceptualisation,
>after all ;-)
> This diagram can then serve to depcit and talk about the dimensions as well
>as give us some understanding of the implications of metrics applied to them
>(for example existence or degree of co-variance)
> See attached diagram (best quality I can manage with limited tools, sorry).
> Please limit interpretation of the "concept map" to the following semantics -
>nothing else is implied:
> (Solid blue ovals) - There are two "nodes" related to "ontology" -
>essentially depicting the "what?" and the "whose?" of the ontology;
> ("Fluffy" green and lilac ovals, over a line connecting two nodes) - There
>are then a series of "named arcs" or relationships/associations between nodes
>that depict or say something about, have or establish some relationship
>between two nodes - the green ones use verbs, while the lilac ones use nouns
>for no reason other than the fact that we didn't have time to go further: the
>green arcs could equally be named "formalization", "expression" and
> (Fluffy red ovals, with an unnamed directed arc pointing to a node) - There
>are some nodes that say something further about another node, whether it is to
>qualify, explain, scope or otherwise constrain;
> (Fluffy yellow ovals, with an unnamed non-directed arc connecting with a
>node) - Some nodes have an "is" or an "is a" relationship with another node
> Finally, the nodes and arcs on the left cover, we believe the issues relating
>to semantic dimensions, while those on the right cover the pragmatic
> So....the big question is now: is this useful? Can it be used as a template
>onto which specific ontologies can be mapped and - where necessary/useful -
>values applied to each node or arc?
> I hope that I have faithfully reproduced what we discussed and not
>extrapolated too far with any of the nodes or arcs: together they do capture
>the entirety of the dimensions and descriptions thereof in the framework
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 21/04/2007
> 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/
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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/ (06)