Dear Michael, (01)
I basically agree with you. See a couple of comments below. (02)
Matthew (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: 28 February 2006 19:12
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Endorsements
>
>
> "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."
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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. (04)
MW: I agree, and in its weakened form proposed by Jim I was going
to let this pass. What I really think is that a (good) CUO will provide
the most efficient means to integrate different systems/domain
ontologies. I would prefer it stated in this way because that is
clearer (and my bosses will take more notice). (05)
>
> 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? (06)
MW: If it is going to be a Common UO I think it has to be a lattice.
Michael Grunigers recent e-mails I think illustrated how this might
work.
>
> I have long believed that the best solution for reaching agreement on
> ontologies at any level is:
>
> * Agree on everything/anything that you can that is uncontentious [or
> contentious only at a superficial level] in terms of the 'things of
> interest'.
>
> * 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.
>
> * Agree to disagree on other things, when there are good reasons for
> different stakeholders that have different needs (e.g. 3d/4d)
>
> * 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.
>
> What do others think? (07)
MW: I think that is similar in a human analysis approach to what Michael
Gruniger is proposing. But he wishes to leave out matters of interpretation,
whereas that would be included in what you say. (08)
MW: I'm not sure about leaving out interpretation. I understand the
advantages of doing so theoretically, but I think that it would be confusing
for the average punter (and remember, we are not the customers of what
we would be producing).
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----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
>
> All,
>
> How's this sound for a statement supporters could endorse?
>
> "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."
>
> The first line is a quote from Steve Ray's draft communique.
>
> 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.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Well I know I can support that since Shell and EPISTLE have been doing
> that for some time now.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell International
> Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----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
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|