John,
Yes, that’s what I was trying to articulate, with a particular emphasis on the provenance/coverage attributes. And I agree that this community should be a good source of SME’s for developing an O3.
Hans
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McClure
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:59 PM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of Ontologies
Hi Hans -
If you're saying ontologies should be specifying attributes like dc:subject, referencing some controlled SKOS vocabulary(s) of functional domains, and or other provenance information such as dc:coverage, then I'm all for that as a specific item in the communique.
At the same time, I'd love to see folks here at Ontolog develop a small vocabulary of TYPES of ontologies, such as that Sowa suggested, that can be referenced by ontologies inventoried, for instance, in the Ontolog Repository that one of the tracks has responsibility for.
Much agree that any given ontology that hasn't incorporated any rdf:type pointing to an "O3 type" should not be penalized in search results -- I definitely hope the repository permits one to independently annotate any resource (ontology) with any property, including <rdf:type="an O3 type"/>!
The key though is to tap into SMEs' knowledge right here -- the Subject Matter Experts where the 'subject' is "ontologies". Surely there should be willingness to develop an O3 among these experts!!!!
/jmc
On 2/5/2014 3:31 PM, Hans Polzer wrote:
Andrea, John:
One concern I have with this line of thinking is that it appears as if it considers that only an ontology can be used to characterize other ontologies for retrieval and reuse purposes. I’m not an ontology expert or a logician, and maybe one can capture all the salient attributes regarding the scope of applicability of any given ontology with such an ontology of/about ontologies, but I believe it would be smart to consider other/additional means of characterizing ontologies for retrieval and utilization decision purposes. Such means may well be grounded in ontologies of specific knowledge and human institutional domains, but could be expressed in simpler domain-specific attribute terms. I believe this would simplify initial searches for relevant ontologies for someone in a particular application or institutional domain. It could also broaden the potential audience for discovering relevant ontologies.
Another concern I have is this notion that an integrating ontology should not be “open-ended”. What happens if someone develops an ontology that doesn’t fit into the integrating ontology in a way that makes it easy to discover for its intended purpose? What’s wrong with open-endedness for such a purpose? Do we already know all the possible domains for which we will have ontologies?
fHans
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrea Westerinen
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:58 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of Ontologies
John and John,
In as much as the "integrating" ontology is an "ontology about ontologies (and their concepts)" ... yes, it is a meta-ontology. However, I find that people handle the term, "integrating ontology", much better. And, it conveys the purpose (as opposed to being open-ended).
Given that some of my customers view ontologies with some skepticism (they call ontology, the "o-word"), I much prefer avoiding adding scary modifiers onto a scary word. (That is just my experience.)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/