This is fantastic! Thanks, Ed. (01)
> [EB] I will leave to Peter the identification
> of his position in the WG (02)
[ppy] I'm happy to serve as a "member" of the WG. (03)
Cheers. =ppy
-- (04)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Ed Barkmeyer<edbark@xxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> --
> 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
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|