If we all agree about CLIF and OWL, perhaps we can begin to discuss the
tools one can use with those formalisms? I find Protégé convenient for
viewing OWL files, though it can be slow even with a moderately complex
ontology (7,000 classes). This should not be a problem for a UOM ontology.
Are others using different tools? (01)
What tool is recommended for working with CLIF files? Are there examples
of usage for study? Does the SigmaKEE tool that is used with SKIF handle
the kinds of syntax that Pat Hayes would recommend? (02)
Pat (03)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-
> std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Price
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:27 AM
> To: uom-ontology-std
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] UoM ontology standard - a proposed
> program of work
>
> Hi again Ed,
>
> What input are we awaiting from John Sowa that would potentially change
> the program of work?
>
> I will contact Howard Mason to get his response. Can someone contact
> Frank Olken?
>
> On language selection:
>
> The discussion has largely been about the diagram notation. Does
> everyone agree about CLIF and OWL?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 12:15 -0400, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> > David Price wrote:
> >
> > > Are we to the point yet where a "final" draft of the proposed
> program or
> > > work can be circulated that addresses the email discussion points?
> >
> > No. We are promised input from John Sowa, and we have heard nothing
> yet
> > from Frank Olken and Howard Mason, who were principals in getting
> this
> > activity organized, as I understood it. I think we should certainly
> see
> > something that resembles "consensus among the leadership", and we
> don't
> > know that we have that yet.
> >
> > > My one comment : If we can agree to your proposal and use CLIF, OWL
> and
> > > informative UML diagrams, then why do we need a language selection
> > > committee?
> >
> > If WE can agree, then of course that action is completed. My intent
> of
> > the "language selection committee" is exactly the self-appointed "WE"
> > that comes to that agreement. I don't know what impact those choices
> > have on the intentions of other participants. I suggested them
> because
> > they are standards, and even then they are not the only choices.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> --
> UK +44 20 8747 3900
> Mobile +44 7788 561308
> Skype +1 336 283 0606
>
> Eurostep Limited. Registered in England and Wales No.03049099
> Registered Office: Cwttir Lane, St. Asaph, Denbighshire LL17 0LQ.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|