Ed, (01)
On the point of: (02)
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. (03)
I have developed a UML based presentation based on ODM but with
adaptations to enhance business SME readability, though it is a bit out
of date against the current ODM. This can also be reported as non-UML
diagrams (UML tool but with all the UML stuff turned off so that the SME
doesn't see a language they know they don't know). And spreadsheets,
which are a bit labour-intensive to produce but are the native language
of many business domain folks. (04)
I thought I should add this to the list of possibilities in case it is
helpful. We may be able to get suitable SME readability using the
official ODM profile with the UML indications turned off, also, which
would probably be preferable. My basic rule has been that as soon as a
business SME sees some geeky piece of punctuation in a diagram, then
they know it is in a format they don't know, so this reduces the quality
of any SME review input. In any case, my approach may come somewhere
close to your "vanilla" UML presentation which you probably use for
similar reasons. To complicate things, and simplify them for the
reviewer, my format also supports different coloured archetypes, which
would not translate into the underlying OWL format but make the diagrams
richer. This would allow you to graphically distinguish measurements,
quantities and units, for example. (05)
Mike (06)
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> All,
>
> 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.
>
> (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.
>
> (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.
>
> (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".)
>
> (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.
>
> I believe these three general activities can proceed in parallel, at
> least for a while.
>
> 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):
>
> - 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)
>
> Agreement? Suggestions? Alternative proposals?
>
> Volunteers? Resignations? ;-)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S. If this sounds like a W3C procedure, it is not accidental.
>
> (07)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|