uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] UoM ontology standard - a proposed program of wor

To: uom-ontology-std <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: David Price <david.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:38:59 +0100
Message-id: <1247733539.4381.17.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Back to questions of actually kicking this thing off formally ...    (01)

I contacted Howard Mason of ISO TC184 SC4 who said he doesn't have the
time to do justice to a leadership role in this effort. So if Frank
Olken is willing to Chair he's it or if someone else is interested,
please speak up.    (02)

Again, what specifically are we awaiting from John Sowa that would
potentially change the program of work?    (03)

The great discussions so far could be better focused as comments,
issues, and questions about a proposed set of concepts or ontology
elements and their relationships. Can we start moving in that direction?    (04)

Cheers,
David    (05)

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:26 +0100, David Price wrote:
> 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    (06)

Eurostep Limited. Registered in England and Wales No.03049099
Registered Office: Cwttir Lane, St. Asaph, Denbighshire LL17 0LQ.    (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)

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