Dear Ravi, Paola and others, (01)
Many of the requirements for standards integration are at a very mundane
level. Consider activities. (02)
1) There are many standards which specify how activities shall be recorded
in different domains. The domains may be quite different, such as adding a
feature to a CAD model or testing a material specimen to determine its
properties. Nonetheless there is basic common information, who, when, why,
how and using what tools. (03)
2) There are many standards which specify how activities shall be performed
in different domains, e.g. material testing again. These standards define
classes of activity by constraints upon who, when, why, how and using what
tools. (04)
A basic ontology for activities and work flow would make life so much easier
in creating these standards. I am sure that many ontologies exist in this
area. How do I decide which one to use? (05)
Best regards,
David (06)
At 04:43 06/04/2009 +0100, you wrote:
>Thanks for picking up on this
>
>I wont be at the summit in person, and although i will miss the opportunity
>of rubbing shoulders again with such distinguished company , I ll be there
>'in spirit' and look forward to the summary (looks like there s going to be
>serious sweating over this)
>
>>From what I have seen of the MOF (is it out yet?). it addresses certain
>aspects of such integration but not all of them
>
>keep us informed of progress on the standardization discussion...
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Ravi Sharma <ravisharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Anyone seeing the variety and disconnectedness of the languages or
>> notations, vertical applications and Subject Matters relating to ontologies
>> is likely to be confused and one of the purposes over next two days could
>> perhaps address and weave an integration and interoperation thread!
>>
>> 1. Could we think of a possible overarching *ontology* or
*standard*(one could argue for both threads in parallel)?
>> 2. We know about the metamodel in many tools where ER diagrams clarify
>> simple relationships.
>> 3. Is there a similar scope for Ontology based metamodels, the basic
>> element if one goes to RDF approach would be a triple, for MOF there could
>> be a UML thing / class, etc.
>> 4. Then one would see how well this metamodel captures at least upper
>> level elements of predicate calculus (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic) and also practically
>> develops important use cases of relationships that are universal. Can the
>> metamodel describe various standards?
>> 5. If we can agree on essentials of such metamodel or the approach to
>> consensus from multidisciplinary approaches to the metamodel, we can map
>> existing and planned standards relating to semantics, web and SOA,
vertical
>> disciplines (e.g. biology and its sub disciplines) and see where there are
>> large gaps and analyze whether it is cost effective to bridge those gaps
>> based on demand or value to research, business, the government
regulation or
>> information sharing and have a sense of the standards space. To some of us
>> who have been working on standards and see that even the known
methodologies
>> and Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have limits of scope
and thus
>> overall integration among various standards (and the spaces covered by
SDOs)
>> could be assisted by such an overview metamodel. How many of IT, Business,
>> and Knowledge Based as well as semantic standards would enter such a
>> metamodel could also be addressed.
>> 6. Also going forward, for ontologies to be able to semantically
>> connect themselves, e.g. in biology (a tall order example!) at least some
>> interoperation standards ought to be followed by ontologies. For
example ODM
>> attempts such a scenario (UML, OWL, CL) at least but the pace at which
>> different *_ML languages and standards are being developed (and some even
>> for the semantics), the development time and resource constraints make
it a
>> long time target to achieve? We need to therefore often de-scope and
manage
>> incremental progress while not losing the canvas on which different SDOs
>> have to interoperate! Can this Summit address priority areas to SDOs for
>> integration or interoperations among standards? Can ontology based
>> metamodels help such efforts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ravi
>>
>> (Dr. Ravi Sharma)
>>
>> 313 204 1740 Mobile
>>
>> drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/OntologySummit2009/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio,
>****************************************
>Forthcoming
>IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
>
>i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
>www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
>
>SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
>http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
>**************************************************
>Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand (07)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (09)
|