Ed, (01)
+1 for stepping up and for the very nice list of actions. (Similar to
what we're doing for a device ontology, over there in W3C world.) (02)
Comment:
- I think you skipped over a step in which the side-by-side ontology
models are compared for value/relevance/suitability, and some process
is followed to integrate the conceptual models into one. (Since it
isn't enough to just select the applicable concepts and 'load them
in'.) Or do you plan to consider the model only after you have the
'big pile of concepts'? It might be helpful, in the latter case, to
have someone working "in the meantime" on articulating the overlaps
and differences in the source models, so that the alternatives can be
readily compared by the group, and the rationale(s) for choosing one
approach over another can be discussed. (03)
Suggestions, for what they are worth:
- Google docs spreadsheet would be a reasonably optimal collaborative
form for documenting the "table of all the distinct UoM concepts".
Reasons why: Fast editing and import of content, familiar interface,
real-time collaboration, spreadsheet tools, everyone can see but
editors can be limited as needed, tables hard to do in wikis. (Reasons
why not: Not part of the same wiki. Some don't like/don't use
Google.) An alternative could be a vocabulary repository together
with a term mapping tool....
- I was just exposed to CMAP Ontology Editor (COE), and I really
enjoyed its "thoughtfully informal" graphical presentation of
ontologies. Just as a suggestion to add to the pile of candidates.
- UDUnits was not mentioned as representing a 'model of UoM', is it
just too flat?
- We quickly developed a set of (basic) attributes for evaluating
ontologies [1] for the W3C SSN Incubator Group [2]. There may be other/
better lists of same, but it's a resource. (04)
And a question: (05)
> 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.) (06)
1) Just wondering, why a *Wiki* repository? Use of it wasn't
mentioned in the rest of the text, that I noticed.
2) I don't understand the last sentence, can you elucidate? (07)
Also, if you don't mind teaching a little, can you explain or give
example of an 'axiomatic form' vs an '(extended) DL form' of the
language? (08)
John (09)
[1] Attributes of Ontologies:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Suggested_Key_Ontology_Intro_Attributes
[2] W3C Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Main_Page (010)
On Jul 10, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: (011)
> 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."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (012)
John (013)
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|