Not being an ordained member of the thread speaks well for you. Perhaps
somebody would volunteer for this task. I don't have any engineers or
students working for me any more so that is not an option. I am not sure I
buy that abstract to concrete is really a different axis than general to
specific. Perhaps you could give your reasons for this.
I do think that one definitely needs an upper ontology for manufacturing
where you can refer to both things like specification artifacts as well as
things manufactured. Certainly ontologies used to represent a factory and
the things it builds comes in multiple levels of generality - or
abstractness if they are distinct.
Interested to here further thoughts
From: Venkata Ramayya [mailto:ramayyam@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:32 PM
To: henson graves
Subject: Concept Map of Ontology Entities/Elements
I am not an ordained member of this discussion thread, but I follow it very
closely as a systems engineer interested in acquiring/developing an ontology
for intelligent manufacturing systems research/development/deployment.
What I find is that the landscape of ontologies is multidimensional.
Vertically it goes from abstract to concrete, and horizontally it goes from
general to specific.
It is extremely difficult to visualize the landscape without a layered
concept map to contribute intelligently or use it pragmatically.
May I therefore suggest that you have one of your engineers/students to
create a concept map using the free CmapTools software available at
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/