Hi Peter, all
I need more time to study the communique in detail, but in principle after a glance
I am also happy to say OK for now (and well done everybody)
as an ongoin progress thereof, however (dont let dust settle on it)
what about allowing individuals to link/post their comments and
possible reservations on a related wiki page, that can be also used as
draft/note taking for the next release?
pdm
On 4/27/07, Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i agree with this as well.
what if we make a near term deadline for clean up suggestions and do
another release?
deborah
Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>
I strongly endorse the idea of having a new version with recent
comments done sooner rather than later. It was done with a
lot of thought and discusion, but ultimately it was a hurry job to get
it done in the two days.
>
> Standing back to tidy up a few rough edges will make us look better and better serve our goals.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ==========================
> Michael Uschold
> M&CT, Phantom Works
> 425 373-2845
> michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==========================
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:
peter@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:30 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] ...Please endorse the Communique
>
> Peter:
>
There are inevitably going to be some suggested edits that come as a
result of standing back a bit after the event ("distance lends clarity
to the view"). I entered some reservations regarding the text mainly so
that we *didn't* descend into a full-blown editing process in the short
time we had: otherwise we would still be on paragraph one or two.
>
>
I would endorse Tom Gruber's and a few others' comment that we should
consider this as a first best effort but then I think we need to answer
five important questions:
> - to whom is the communiqué intended to be addressed?
> - until when do we give everyone the opportunity to submitting proposals for textual changes (a deadline)?
> - how long do we give a redactional team to integrate afap the remarks received?
> - when do we open and close a further round of endorsement of the (possibly) revised text?
> - how do we intend promoting the final result to the target audience?
>
> Best regards, and sincere thanks to Frank and Olivier for coordinating all this so far
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
> Sent: 26 April 2007 20:00
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] ...Please endorse the Communique
>
> Michael, ... this also goes to Barry Smith and Deborah MacPherson who sent me their suggested edits offline ... et al,
>
> Re:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
>
> Thank you for the suggestions and the time and effort you put into it.
>
>
The version of the communique (v1.0.0 / 2007.04.24) was supposed to be
'frozen' after its review, collaborative editing and wordsmithing
exercise at the "Communique session" on Apr-24 morning, before it was
adopted at the Summit Symposium (Apr-24 afternoon) by those at the
Ontoogy Summit 2007 Symposium session. I agree with Michael, I wished
these were brought up at the session and went into the discussion
leading up to Communique v1.0.0 adoption.
>
> As such, any
further/substantive edits (other than typos and formatting like
boldface highlight etc. ... which I will work on) will have to wait
until a 'next version' (which did mention as being a possibility during
the discussion yesterday) is opened up for review, edit, adoption
through a similar community process.
>
> I shall pass all
received suggestions (if you haven't aleady posted them publicly) to
the Communique Session co-chairs, Olivier Bodenreider and Frank Olken,
and will defer to them to recommend the 're-openning' of a follow-on
discussion to generate a "next version"
> of the communique.
>
> ... Hope this is ok with you.
>
>
My outstanding task is to collect all the names of people who would
endorse v1.0.0 by Apr-30 and then add that onto the document (as an
integral part of the release.)
>
> With that, may we still
have your endorsement to this currently adopted version (v1.0.0) of the
communique? ... I look forward to all your positive responses.
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On 4/26/07, Uschold, Michael F <
michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I broadly approve of this document. In the large, it does a great job
>> of achieving its intended purpose. I regret not having been there.
>>
>> In the small... I have a few suggestions, in case it is not too late
>> to make changes/updates w/o starting a war :-))
>>
>> It would be a very good idea to highlight at the beginning who the
>> intended audience is.
>> --
>>
>> The major dimensions should be highlighted, minimaly in boldface. Now
>> they are hidden in a long string of paragraphs. Oddly, this is done
>> for the lesser dimensions, why not for the major ones?
>> Furthermore, section [sub]headings should highlight the different
>> groups of dimensions, semantic and pragmatic.
>> --
>>
>> The findings start of with a dimension, this is odd. It also mentions
>> "The governance dimension, as if it has been mentioned before, which
>> it has not. The findings section should be introduced, not just
>> launched into.
>> --
>>
>> The NUMBER of concept and relations is not even a crude measure of
>> generality. It is at best under limited circustances correlated with
>> granularity.
E.g. if the scope is constant, and the coverage of the
>> topics in the ontology is uniform, then more granularity would require
>> more concepts and relations. But you can have zillions of concepts
>> for a huge domain and still be low granularity. You could have a
>> smallish domain where all but a small part is covered in little
>> detail, with one bit covered in great detail. The number of concepts tells you nothing.
>> This might be one of those things like pornography, where it may be
>> impossible to have a metric for testing it, but we recognize it when
>> we see it.
>> --
>>
>> The examples for intended use are all over the place. Some are
>> general, some are highly specific. It makes more sense to try to have
>> a lot of coverage with general categories and maybe toss in a few
>> examples. I would suggest something like this to replace the portion
>> of the current
>> text:
>>
>> "Ontologies are used for a variety of purposes. These include human to
>> human communication (e.g. controlled vocabularies for recording
>> medical diagnoses), semantic interoperability & integration among
>> heterogeneous databases and applications, neutral authoring, data
>> semantics specification for databases or data entry, improved search &
>> question answering, sharing and reuse. Ontologies are also used in
>> ontology-driven software engineering, where the ontology is the basis
>> for a software specification. In conjunction with automated reasoning,
>> this can give rise to improved reliabilty, reduced need for hardwired
>> code, reduced software maintenance costs and improved flexibility and
>> adaptability."
>>
>> I took out agent communication languages because it seemed too
>> specific, but someone might want to toss it back in somwhere.
>> --
>>
>> I'm a little unhappy with the Prescriptive vs. Descriptive dimension.
>> I'm not familiar with people building ontologies to describe
>> contemporary semantic usage. Normally if you want to do that, you make
>> a glossary or controlled vocabulary or write a paper, you don't
>> capture that in an ontology. Now someone may prove me wrong on this,
>> so that's fine. But I still don't think it is common enough to have it
>> be the definition of descriptive as a point on a dimension opposed
>> with prescriptive.
>>
>> A simple contrast between prescriptive and descriptive is:
>> * you should do it this way, vs.
>> * I'm doing the best I can to describe what I see (but I don't care
>> what you do)
>>
>> But there are many possible reasons that "you should do it this way":
>>
>> 1. you should do it this way because it is THE scientifically and
>> philosophically correct way to model reality 2. you should do it this
>> way because on balance, taking into account many different tradoffs
>> among the various equally reasonable 'right ways' to model reality,
>> this is the best one.
>> 3. you should choose this particular 'right way' if you need to use
>> your ontology to do X, but you should use that particular 'right way'
>> if you need to use your ontology do to Y.
>> Or maybe even:
>> 4. You should do it this way because it is the one 'right way' to
>> characterize the current contemporary semantic usage in this given
>> domain.
>> 5. etc.
>>
>> I think the more important distinction that is missed here is:
>> "engineered for a purpose" vs. "being at attempt to model reality".
>> The first is 3. above, the second is 1 above.
>>
>> So here is a possible alternative.
>>
>> Have a normative/description dimension, but keep it simple as above.
>>
>> Add a new "to model reality" vs. "engineered for purpose" dimension.
>> The difference is in what is the held up as the test for whether the
>> ontology is 'good'. In one case, it is an accurate reflection of
>> reality. In the other, it is whether it meets the intended purpose. It
>> is kind of a meta-purpose of the ontology (compared to the intended
>> purpose dimension)
>>
>>
>> This falls a bit short of a complete counterproposal, but hopefuly not
>> by too much.
>> --
>>
>>
>> If it is too late for changes, then I just wasted an hour or so...
>> And anyway, it's too late to stay up any longer.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> ==========================
>> Michael Uschold
>> M&CT, Phantom Works
>> 425 373-2845
>> michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==========================
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go
>> to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:56 PM
>> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
>> Subject: [ontology-summit] OntologySummit2007 has been a great success!
>> ...Please endorse the Communique
>>
>> I am most excited to report that we had a REALLY successful 2-days of
>> workshops and Symposium.
>>
>> Members of the organizing committee would like to express their
>> heartfelt "thank you" to everyone who contributed to the 3-months'
>> virtual discourse and the two days of face-to-face meetings. (... My
>> personal apologies on some of the glitches that remote audience had
>> experienced during the last 2-days.)
>>
>> One of our major deliverables is our Communique, which you can find
>> at:
>>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
>>
>> We need your endorsement to this Communique. Kindly review the
>> document and confirm that by e-mail to me (at <
peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>,
>> off-line, if you agree with the content and haven't already done so)
>> on/before April 30, 2007, so we go into history with your name on the
>> list of people who are endorsing the "Ontology Summit 2007 Communique".
>>
>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>
>> P.S. proceedings of the 2-days' face-to-face meetings can be found at:
>>
>> o 2007.04.23 Monday am (EDT) - Session-1:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Framework_S
>> es
>> sion
>>
>> o 2007.04.23 Monday pm (EDT) - Session-2:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Population_
>> Se
>> ssion
>>
>> o 2007.04.24 Tuesday am (EDT) - Session-3:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique_
>> Se
>> ssion
>>
>> o 2007.04.24 Tuesday pm (EDT) - Session-4:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Symposium
>> ("The Summit Meeting" proper)
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/
>> 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/
> 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/
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007 12:19
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007 12:19
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> 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/
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/
--
Paola Di Maio****
Lecturer and Researcher
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai
Thailand
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|