Dear Oliver, (01)
That sounds great! (02)
What I am inclined towards, is for us (OOR core team members) to plan
out an open virtual session during an OOR team confcall (which will
only be attended by a few of us), when we can invite a broader
community (say, people from ONTOLOG, IAOA, BioPortal, SOCoP, etc.)
and, in particular, more people with diverse views, to chime in on
what's best to do. (03)
It would be wonderful to have a proposal (as a baseline, to build
upon), drafted before that open session! (04)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (05)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Oliver Kutz
<okutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> ideally we find slot for this that works for all of us - I won't be able to
>participate on the 30th as I will be in the air flying to China. A brief
>discussion in that call could be useful, otherwise we can use August to
>develop our proposal a bit further and discuss a more refined version in the
>September call.
>
> Best, Oliver (06)
> On 24 Jul 2013, at 21:39, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear Tills,
>>
>> Oops ... I did mean Tue 2013.09.03.
>>
>> We definitely want you around when we discuss this. We could try to
>> tacle this at a later call (or even, briefly at least, if the right
>> people are present) at the call next Tue (7/30) - OOR-Hackathon-n.03
>> on "API".
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>> -- (07)
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Till Mossakowski
>> <Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> do you mean Tue 2013.09.03?
>>> Then I am in Warsaw at a conference. Not sure whether I will be able to
>>> participate, but maybe if suffices if Aleksandra and Oliver can.
>>>
>>> Best, Till (08)
>>> Am 24.07.2013 21:05, schrieb Peter Yim:
>>>
>>>> Dear Till & Aleksandra,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. We can discuss this a bit more at our next OOR Team
>>>> (admin/planning) conference call, which is scheduled for Tue
>>>> 2013.09.02. Let's remember to include this into the agenda for that
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>>> -- (09)
>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Till Mossakowski
>>>> <Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a good idea!
>>>>> In particular, the meta ontology could be refined at various places, but
>>>>> this should only be done at those places where there are real ontologies
>>>>> that wait for classification...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Till (010)
>>>>> Am 23.07.2013 18:53, schrieb Peter Yim:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice work! Thank you, Till & Aleksandra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that we have a good "starting point," we probably should devote a
>>>>>> session (say, a Joint Session with interested collaborators), in the
>>>>>> not-too-distant future, to discuss where to go, from here, and get
>>>>>> input from the broader community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>>>>> -- (011)
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Till Mossakowski
>>>>>> <Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aleksandra Sojic has created a first version of the meta ontology, see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/ontohub/OOR_Ontohub_API/blob/master/Domain_fields.owl
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> use "raw" for downloading and viewing with Protégé:
>>>>>>> https://raw.github.com/ontohub/OOR_Ontohub_API/master/Domain_fields.owl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This ontology provides a meta-classification that according to the
>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>> subjects distributes domain-ontologies into the domain-specific
>>>>>>> classes.
>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>> the reference classification we have considered several international
>>>>>>> standards which are used to classify domain fields. The International
>>>>>>> Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) has been selected as the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> appropriate reference for the specification of the (subject) categories
>>>>>>> within the OntoHub. ISCED is a member of the United Nations
>>>>>>> International
>>>>>>> Family of Economic and Social Classifications and is the reference
>>>>>>> classification for organizing education programmes and related
>>>>>>> qualifications by levels and fields of education (ref. ISCED). In
>>>>>>> particular, we have used the last version of ISCED (the final draft
>>>>>>> published in June 2013) as it provides a hierarchy of knowledge domains
>>>>>>> suitable for covering comprehensively the corresponding
>>>>>>> ontology-modelling
>>>>>>> fields.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Domain-fields-ontology has to be developed further in order to
>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>> several other specifications, especially considering the domains which
>>>>>>> experience a significant expansion in the ontology development, e.g.
>>>>>>> Life
>>>>>>> Sciences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please find attached a graphical visualisation of the recently
>>>>>>> published
>>>>>>> Domain-fields ontology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Till (012)
>>>>>>> Am 29.05.2013 21:30, schrieb matthew lange:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We aren't taking the lead
>>>>>>>> in this categorization effort but if a standard (defacto or not)
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> arise we would be interested in adapting our system to use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Watching this thread, and interested as well...do you have a reference
>>>>>>>> for who is heading this up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Ray Fergerson
>>>>>>>> <ray.fergerson@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ray.fergerson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oliver,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Worth pointing out is that we (the NCBO team) don't feel that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> BioPortal categorization is very good. It should probably not be
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the basis for anything. There are external efforts to produce a
>>>>>>>> categorization system for the biomedical domain. We aren't
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> the lead
>>>>>>>> in this categorization effort but if a standard (defacto or not)
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> arise we would be interested in adapting our system to use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ray (013)
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> [mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Till
>>>>>>>> Mossakowski
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:14 AM
>>>>>>>> To: oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Oliver Kutz
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [oor-forum] Categories for ontologies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the interesting question is then: what happens if we federate
>>>>>>>> BioPortal
>>>>>>>> with SOCoP? We need a taxonomy including all the involved
>>>>>>>> categories, such
>>>>>>>> that in the ontology browser, all the BioPortal categories are
>>>>>>>> combined
>>>>>>>> into one category "biology" (which can be expanded into the
>>>>>>>> BioPortal
>>>>>>>> categories on demand).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 29.05.2013 08:53, schrieb Till Mossakowski:
>>>>>>>>> Am 29.05.2013 00:29, schrieb John F Sowa:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2013 4:27 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, the user wants to use *one* ontology or
>>>>>>>> classification
>>>>>>>>>>> system for classifying ontologies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean "one classification system"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In BioPortal, when the user uploads a new ontology, (s)he can
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> some categories classifying the ontology. When browsing all
>>>>>>>>> ontologies, you can also filter them by category.
>>>>>>>>> The possible categories are: Animal Development, Biological
>>>>>>>> Process,
>>>>>>>>> Human, Plant, Yeast, Cell etc. (Btw, not all categories
>>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> the REST service can be selected for browsing.) The OOR
>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>> http://mercury-ncbo.ornl.gov seems to (erroneously) use the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> categories In the OOR instance http://socop.oor.net, the
>>>>>>>> categories
>>>>>>>>> are (exhaustive
>>>>>>>>> list): Commercial, Cultural, Defense, Financial, Geospatial,
>>>>>>>>> Government, Literature, Metadata, Other, Process, Provenance,
>>>>>>>> Science,
>>>>>>>>> Social Networking, Standards, Technology, Upper Ontologies.
>>>>>>>>> I now just wonder what we should do for Ontohub.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The number of different kinds of ontologies, their purposes,
>>>>>>>> goals,
>>>>>>>>>> applications, levels, logics, notations, uses, etc., is
>>>>>>>> open-ended.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that somebody asked you to compare Cyc to BFO to the
>>>>>>>> Good
>>>>>>>>>> Relations ontology to schema.org <http://schema.org>. Where
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would you begin? And why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not about comparing ontologies. It is just that the
>>>>>>>> "filter
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> category" dropdown box on the browsing web page needs to show
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>> list of options to the user...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best, Till
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski Cartesium, room 2.51 Phone
>>>>>>>> +49-421-218-64226 <tel:%2B49-421-218-64226>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DFKI GmbH Bremen Fax
>>>>>>>> +49-421-218-9864226
>>>>>>>> <tel:%2B49-421-218-9864226>
>>>>>>>> Cyber-Physical Systems Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> <mailto:Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, D-28359 Bremen
>>>>>>>> http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
>>>>>>>> principal
>>>>>>>> office, *not* the address for mail etc.!!!:
>>>>>>>> Trippstadter Str. 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern management board:
>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wahlster (chair), Dr. Walter Olthoff supervisory board:
>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>> Hans A. Aukes (chair) Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (015)
|