uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

[uom-ontology-std] UoM ontology standard - a proposed program of work

To: uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:57:50 -0400
Message-id: <4A5764FE.9020307@xxxxxxxx>
All,    (01)

Since I have been asked privately, and I have some ideas, I want to 
suggest a concrete plan of action that follows from the Web conference.    (02)

(1) Requirements gathering
     From the Web teleconference, and its references and contributions, 
we have a lot of material that identifies the requirements for UoM 
models that were perceived as important to various groups.  We need to 
turn that material into an explicit catalogue of "requirements" as a 
single document.
     We should probably divide the requirements into "minimal" (sine qua 
non), highly desirable, and WIBNI ("wouldn't it be nice if...").
     Someone needs to volunteer to edit/draft this document.
     We can expect the first circulated draft to focus the attention of 
this group and create some debate.  There will follow further drafts.    (03)

(2) Language selection
     Since we are going to propose a standard ontology, it should be 
documented in one or more standard languages.
     Technically, we have at this time only 3 good choices:  CLIF, RDF, 
and OWL.  But it should be noted that "OWL" is an umbrella for several 
languages, one of which (OWL/Full) might be considered the best choice 
for an appropriate RDF dialect.  We need to make choices among these for 
the normative ontologies.
     These languages have very different expressive powers.  I suggest 
that we choose one axiomatic form and one (extended) DL form, and do all 
the formal ontology work in exactly those languages.
     We also need a non-normative graphical representation, to enable 
rapid comprehension.  The ODM Profile for OWL (using UML tools) suggests 
itself, but I usually use a more vanilla UML form for presentation of 
basic concepts.  And something adequate that is supported by 
web-available tooling (like Protegé) is a good alternative.
     I suggest that we choose a useful graphical form supported by 
available tools and use it, exclusively, for presentation and discussion 
in the group.  Further, I suggest that we will include non-normative 
diagrams in this language in the proposed standard, as an aid to reader 
comprehension.    (04)

(3) Available ontological models
     From the presentations, we know that there are basic UoM ontologies 
in DOLCE, SUMO, OpenCyc, BFO, and probably others.  In addition, we know 
there are basic UoM models in UCUM and UnitsML.
     We should identify the specific set of reference ontologies and 
other knowledge sources that we will use, each supported by a named 
expert who is a member of this working group.  We can add to the set as 
additional resources come to light.
     We should extract the UoM parts of these ontologies into a 
repository and look at them side-by-side.  (The basic VIM concept set is 
only a dozen concepts or so. It should not be necessary to include all 
the infrastructure on which the UoM part is built -- the idea here is to 
identify the UoM concepts that are captured.)
     That means: individuals who are familiar with each ontology will 
volunteer to be the "named expert", do the abstraction, and put the 
result in a *document* in a Wiki repository.
(If we get wrapped around an ontology repository that only accepts 
ontologies in OWL, it is of no use, because each of these extracts will 
be in the language of the upper ontology.)
     We should then create a table of all the distinct UoM concepts that 
appear in any of these resources, with one row for each concept, and one 
column for each of the resources, such that the row/column cell 
identifies the "equivalent" of that concept in that resource.
     (We can create the table as we go.  The first document in the Wiki 
populates some set of rows and one column, the next populates a second 
column and possibly extends the set of rows, etc.  We can later work 
with the table to identify formerly unperceived "equivalents".)    (05)

(4) Initial draft
     Once we have a catalogue of the UoM concepts in the major reference 
ontologies, all the UoM concepts that appear in all (or most) of the 
upper ontologies are obvious candidates for immediate formulation in our 
chosen languages.  And those formulations can be guided by the 
formulations in the various extracts.
     What will remain are the debatable axioms and concepts, and the 
issues from the requirements gathering activity that are not 
satisfactorily addressed in the available work.  So, when we reach this 
stage, we can sort out a further program-of-work.    (06)

I believe these three general activities can proceed in parallel, at 
least for a while.    (07)

So we have some job openings (the pay is really poor: no money, no 
prestige, a lot of work, some vilification; we depend on your altruism, 
or some other motivation):    (08)

- chief requirements editor (1)
- vice requirements editor (1-3)
- language selection committee (5-7)
- ontology extraction manager (table management, expert goader)
- reference ontology experts (1-2 per resource)
- chief ontology formulation editor (1)
- vice ontology formulation editor (1-2)
- Working Group co-Chairs (2), or Chair and Vice Chair
- Wiki manager (1)    (09)

Agreement?  Suggestions?  Alternative proposals?    (010)

Volunteers?  Resignations? ;-)    (011)

I got the impression that Frank Olken and Howard Mason were nominated as 
the WG co-chairs.  But someone can correct that.  And I will leave to 
Peter the identification of his position in the WG.    (012)

I will nominate myself as a "requirements editor".  I will be happy to 
be an Indian ("vice editor") if someone else wants the big headdress.    (013)

-Ed    (014)

P.S. If this sounds like a W3C procedure, it is not accidental.    (015)

-- 
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    (016)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (017)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/  
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/  
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard    (018)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>