"A common upper ontology is essential for achieving affordable
and scalable semantic interoperability. Summit participants will
explore alternative approaches to developing or establishing this common
upper ontology." (01)
As it stands, I cannot endorse this statement for two reasons.
1. I don't know that it is 'essential'.
2. I don't believe is possible to have a single CUO. (02)
A lot of people, including me balked at using the term 'essential'
below. The revised statement is weaker than the original one, and it is
borderline acceptable, but still may be too strong. (03)
Also, I don't think you will ever get a 'common upper ontology' any more
than you will ever get a common enterprise ontology or a common ontology
on any subject among any sufficiently large and diverse group of
stakeholders. Will this CUO be 3d or 4d? It cannot be both. Or do you
mean by CUO, a broader lattice of UOs? (04)
I have long believed that the best solution for reaching agreement on
ontologies at any level is: (05)
* Agree on everything/anything that you can that is uncontentious [or
contentious only at a superficial level] in terms of the 'things of
interest'. (06)
* If you can also agree on the same terms for the things of interest,
then great. If not, then use different terms and map/record them as
synonyms. (07)
* Agree to disagree on other things, when there are good reasons for
different stakeholders that have different needs (e.g. 3d/4d) (08)
* where possible, map between the diff 'things of interest' so that a
user can to the maximal extent possible, enjoy the experience of a
virtual CEO, even though it is more messy under the bonnet/hood. If a
lattice of theories works for this, then great. (09)
What do others think? (010)
Mike (011)
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
[mailto:James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:13 AM
To: 'Upper Ontology Summit convention'
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Endorsements (012)
All, (013)
How's this sound for a statement supporters could endorse? (014)
"A common upper ontology is essential for achieving affordable
and scalable semantic interoperability. Summit participants will
explore alternative approaches to developing or establishing this common
upper ontology." (015)
The first line is a quote from Steve Ray's draft communique. (016)
We don't have consensus on 'how' to get to this ontology. This
summit should explore the alternate approaches and which ones each
participant is in a position (and willing) to pursue. (017)
Jim Schoening (018)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West, Matthew
R SIPC-DFD/321
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:43 AM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Endorsements (019)
Dear Colleagues, (020)
Well I know I can support that since Shell and EPISTLE have been doing
that for some time now. (021)
Regards (022)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell International
Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (023)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (024)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: 28 February 2006 03:00
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: [uos-convene] Endorsements
>
>
> Organizations are being asked to endorse an UO effort.
> This needs to be precise, if I can possibly get Boeing to sign off.
>
> Here is proposed text that might be workable:
>
> "We believe that efforts to standardize upper ontologies is valuable."
>
> If we want to say much more, we should have a concise statement of our
> objective(s) that define the effort that organizations are endorsing.
>
> Mike
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|