Common logic was implemented to resolve these issues in 2006. It is not a cure all. No one thing ever is. Every mission is contextually special. I hope to see you all at STIDS 2011 at George Mason where we are sure to discuss these issues in some depth.
Sent from my iPhone
You are preaching to the choir. But the issue isn't whether to use
or adopt Common Logic. I think there is a consensus that it's an
essential element of the solution. The argument's about whether CL
is or could be extended to support interconnecting an (apparently
unlimited) collection of ontological models. I hope John Sowa's
right, that the CL specification could be extended to meet the
requirement, but I don't understand enough about actual applications
to see how. I'm afraid that much of the argument against extending
CL is based on NIH, but without a better grounding in the elements
of the debate, I don't feel qualified to make such a charge.
Much of today's OOR Metadata discussion touched on similar issues.
The difference is, I think, that OOR intends that each repository
instance will provide a closed world environment with complete
control over the unified ontology content, mediated by more or less
statically defined unifying functions (represented by the
use/hasImports connections). Interoperability, the goal of the ISO
17347 effort, is much more ambitious, I think. And of course, our
experience with the NCOIC SCOPE model, and its focus on open world
issues, should provide valuable insights.
Terry
Todd J Schneider wrote:
Terry,
Thank you for the elucidation.
If you have any influence, try to push for the use/adoption of
Common Logic.
People need to grow up someday. Delaying things only
entrenches bad practices.
Todd
-----"terry.longstreth" <terry.longstreth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: -----
To: Todd J Schneider <todd.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "terry.longstreth" <terry.longstreth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/17/2011 11:20PM
Subject: Re: [oor-forum] OOR Team Conference Call - Tue
2011.10.04
DOL is the rubric assigned to the
first intended product of the ISO/WD 17347 working
group. For more information see the CIM3
Wikipage
John Sowa is pushing hard for the group to adopt CL or IKL
as the DOL, but he's meeting with a lot of resistance to the
idea. I'm not sure I follow the arguments (from either
side), but I do know that the ISO standard for CL is up for
review, making this an opportune time to consider convolving
the two efforts.
Terry
Todd J Schneider wrote:
Terry,
I haven't reviewed the material at the URL, but what
is a
'Distributed Ontology Language'?
Todd
-----oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote: -----
To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
From: "terry.longstreth" <terry.longstreth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 10/15/2011 01:39AM
Cc: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [oor-forum] OOR Team Conference Call -
Tue 2011.10.04
Thanks, Peter. I did a quick scan
of it, and I think it's a useful background/use case
document for both OOR and DOL (Distributed Ontology
Language).
Terry
Peter Yim wrote:
Terry & All,
During the Oct-4 meeting, I relayed a report
from MikeDean on the
SOCoP presentation at the NSF CyberGIS All Hands
Meeting (at Oak Ridge
National Lab, 28~30-Oct-2011), especially
regarding the segment
related to OOR. Terry you asked if someone can
provide a link to the
slides that were presented.
For your information, MikeDean has since
furnished this information;
you can find that on our meeting proceedings now
- please see under:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_10_04#nid2X5I
... thanks, Mike.
Regards. =ppy
--
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_10_04
= REMINDER =
This is a reminder that we will be having a
regular OOR team meeting
next Tuesday (Oct-4) ... people should still
pay special attention to
the time of the call, as this is one of the
earlier sessions on the
newly adopted meeting slot (where we have
moved the Fridays starting
6:00am PDT / 9:00am EDT / 3:00pm CEST to
Tuesdays starting at 8:30am
PDT / 11:30am EDT / 5:30pm CEST.)
Date: Tuesday, 4-Oct-2011
Start time: 8:30am PDT / 11:30am EDT / 5:30pm
CEST / 4:30pm BST / 15:30 UTC
* worldclock: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=4&year=2011&hour=8&min=30&sec=0&p1=224
Items to cover include (but not limited to):
* OOR-sandbox and OOR-devbox status update
(incl. developments on the
vm image issue) {nid 2X4W}
* a report on the late-September SOCoP ORNL
meetings {nid 2X4X}
* Member activities updates {nid 2X4Z}
* planning and coordination on upcoming OOR
events {nid 2X4Y}
** OOR Architecture-API sessions, OOR Metadata
sessions, Standards
sessions, ... more
* action planning for "soliciting" content
{nid 2X50}
Agenda and other meeting details will be on
the session page at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_10_04
Please add any other item you want to see on
the agenda under "Agenda
Ideas" on the session page, or post it to this
thread.
Add yourself to the expected attendee list of
the session page on the
wiki (or RSVP to me via email, off-list)
please.
Hope to talk to you all at the call next
Tuesday!
Thanks & regards. =ppy
p.s. Since RayFergerson is not available to
join us at this call, we
will be postponing the item on "Architectural
review and discussion,
how do we best leverage the OOR-NCBO
collaboration" - ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_09_13
to a session in the near future when he will
be able to join us. I
have some interim updates from him that I can
relay during this
meeting, though.
--
--
<BaseBusinessLongstrethMin.png>
|