David, (01)
I know it must seem I am stuck in a rut - and still a largely vapourware
rut at that! - but I can respond to your wish for "A basic ontology for
activities and work flow" by pointing out that an extensible ontology
for those key concepts is of course fundamental to the canonically
modular and ontology-driven AOS (Application Operating System) for
applications designed in accordance with The Mainstream Architecture for
Common Knowledge that I have been talking about so much recently. (02)
You further wonder: "I am sure that many ontologies exist in this area.
How do I decide which one to use?" (03)
It's obviously premature for me to suggest you to work with my still
only partly-programmed product, your institution is clearly very much
involved already in such matters, and I have the evident ulterior
motives ... (04)
... but I nonetheless venture the likewise obvious thought that one
important criterion in your decision has to be the degree to which the
activity ontology is actually integrated or integrable or interoperable
with the ontologies of activity objectives, resources, deliverables and
operators or users. (05)
Christopher (06)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Leal" <david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ontology Summit 2009" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 06 April, 2009 22:00
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2009 - Standards
integration or interoperation (07)
> Dear Ravi, Paola and others,
>
> Many of the requirements for standards integration are at a very
> mundane level. Consider activities.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Best regards,
> David (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)
|