Peter Yim wrote:
> The challenge would be for you, Chip and Hans Peter to sync up among
> yourselves (off-line, as the case may be) and with PatHayes and
> DavidLeal too, to produce the *one* owl UoM_ontology_standard.
> (01)
I have to disagree. What Peter describes makes the further
participation of most of us pointless. (02)
The idea is that the three existing OWL ontologies can be merged with
respect to common concepts and agree on one term for each of those
concepts. Where there are differences of opinion as to what the
conceptual model should be, those should be raised as issues. That
gives us a baseline. But the "*one* owl UoM_ontology_standard" will be
developed by the TC/WG from that baseline in an open process. (03)
The idea is that the 3 OWL Champions, having done the work, can
recognize the differences that are just terminological and the
differences that are modeling choices, and the differences that are
conceptual concerns. They can give the group a baseline in which the
terminological differences and most of the modeling style issues have
been sorted out, as if they had all been party to one activity in the
first place. But once we have a Working Draft, it will be up to the TC
to capture and resolve issues and to appoint an editor to maintain the
Working Draft. (04)
And OBTW, there will be no English language text until an OWL Working
Draft is circulated, and the UML diagrams will be maintained to match
the OWL WD. Any other strategy just results in further re-/retro-fits.
The CLIF form enhances the OWL model; English and UML document it. Or
at least, that was my understanding. (05)
> The plan was that we get all the drafting done, before even moving
> over to OASIS, so that we will onlyt be leveraging the OASIS-SDO
> setting to make the work into a recognized "standard." ... I guess we
> are still aiming to do just that.
> (06)
I disagree. The plan is to have a baseline specification for the
principal modules when we convene the TC, and to develop it into a
consensus standard via the OASIS open process. This is not a NASA joint
project pushing for wider adoption as is. (If we had a document that
had multiple supporting parties already using it, the process Peter
describes would be what was wanted, and OMG RFC would probably be a
better choice. That is the kind of thing the UCUM is doing.) (07)
-Ed (08)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (09)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-admin/
Config/Unsubscribe:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-admin/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Issue Tracking /Doc Repository: http://uom.emcs.cornell.edu/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (011)
|