I strongly concur with this practical approach. There is a large body
of existing agreement on standard terms, definitions and relationships
in the published work of standards bodies and consortia. There is no
need to reinvent this - just encode in whatever language you are using
to represent your ontologies. (01)
Many people make the joke that "the great thing about standards is that
there are so many to choose from". One of the main reasons for this is
that inadequate searching is done on the availability of existing
material before kicking off a development activity - we ended up with
three different standards for postal address through just such a
strategy. Subsidiary reasons include the need to justify research funds
by doing something different, or the belief that the existing work
cannot be used since "Our requirement is different", despite all
evidence to the contrary. (02)
I would encourage all concerned to take note of these hard-won lessons
and ensure that ontological developments build on the shoulders of those
who have gone before, to paraphrase Einstein. (03)
Howard Mason
Chair, ISO TC 184/SC 4, Industrial Data
Corporate IT Office
Tel: +44 1252 383129
Mob: +44 780 171 3340
Eml: howard.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BAE Systems plc
Registered Office: 6 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AD, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1470151 (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
Sowa
Sent: 23 January 2009 01:38
To: Ontology Summit 2009
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Your Ontology Summit discussionlist
subscription (05)
*** WARNING *** (06)
This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. (07)
Chris, (08)
I strongly endorse the idea of "core" ontologies along the lines you
describe. The kinds of things defined by them would include units of
measure and terminology about which there is little or no debate. The
only point I would quibble about is the term "core", but I'll defer to
whatever the organizing committee decides. (09)
CW> In the W3C, I used the OWL-Time work http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time
> as an example of this, and its success has garnered some support for
> the idea of Core Ontologies. (010)
Times, dates, and the common ways of expressing them are essential for a
great majority of practical applications, and they are independent of
the debates about 3D vs 4D ontologies. (011)
Every branch of science, engineering, and business has standards bodies
that gather such data and develop a consensus on the names and basic
relationships. All of them should be in the registry/repository. (012)
The periodic table of the elements, for example, should be one of the
ontologies in the repository. It can be used by chemists, physicists,
pharmacists, etc., independent of any theory about the fundamental
nature of atomic particles. (013)
A registry/repository that contains a large collection of such
modules/theories/ontologies (or whatever anyone might call them) would
be immensely valuable. I strongly recommend that we *begin* with
assembling and organizing such modules. This might not be as
theoretically exciting as debating the upper level ontologies, but it
would provide a valuable service with immediate benefits. (014)
I would put the debates about philosophy, primitives, and upper level
architecture on the back burner, where they can simmer for another 222
years -- while the people who have "day jobs" can start using the
extremely practical lower-level modules. (015)
John Sowa (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (017)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (019)
|