This statement is too strong, and I don't agree with it in its current
form: (01)
"the use of some formally defined common upper ontology is
essential for semantic interoperability." (02)
Replace 'essential' with 'helpful', and I'm on board. (03)
UOs can be a big help towards solving semantic interoperability, by
making part of the problem go away. The whole problem [pretty much] goes
away if everyone uses the same ontology. (04)
We get over lack of a common ontology by mapping between them, we can do
the same thing for UOs, in principle. (05)
Mike (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
[mailto:James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:09 PM
To: 'uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too. (07)
All, (08)
I agree with Steve Ray's statement in the draft communique, (09)
"We all agree the use of some formally defined common upper
ontology is essential for semantic interoperability." (010)
I support exploring this new approach, but let's not dismiss other
possible approaches, such as: (011)
1. Major Leader Approach:
a. A large player selects one CUO (after seeking input and
consensus within an open forum)
b. Its business partners use it and it spreads gobally (012)
2. Consortium Leader Approach: (013)
a. A consortium of key players develop or select a CUO.
b. It spreads globally (014)
3. Market Momentum Approach
a. Many players use different CUOs and the market eventually
moves toward one of them. (015)
4. Consensus Approach
Open forum seeks to develop or select a CUO. (016)
My assessment of each: (017)
All approaches need more commercial success of basic system ontologies. (018)
#4 IEEE SUO WG (which I chaired) tried this but achieved little
consensus, due in part to lack of utilization of the candidate upper
ontologies, lack of pragmatic vendor participation, lack of market
momentum toward any one candidate, and maybe just because there is no
one correct upper ontology. (019)
#3 I don't see this happening any time soon. Stand-alone ontologies
don't need and aren't using upper ontologies. (020)
#2. This could work, but only if the reach agreement and then use the
CUO. (021)
#1. This could work, but again, only if the major player successfully
uses the CUO. (022)
And I am anxious to learn more about the approach of this summit. (023)
Jim Schoening (024)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (025)
|