See Inline comments: MU> (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 [mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:43 AM
To: uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [uos-convene] A Common Upper Ontology? (02)
Dear Ray, (03)
I hesitate to edit without some agreement a document that is intended to
be a joint agreement. So I will present those things that I disagree
with for discusion. (04)
First from the Background. (05)
"A new initiative is needed to find agreement on a set of basic concepts
that can be easily understood and exploited by diverse communities of
users to permit their systems to accurately exchange detailed meanings
for the concepts they need to communicate with each other." (06)
I think there is a chance to find some mid level things that could be
imported into different upper ontologies (changing the precise meaning
in the process - eg. 3D cars vs 4D cars).
However, I don't think there is ONE set of basic concepts that can be
shared by diverse UPPER ontologies (top few hundred objects). (07)
If some or all of the 3D ontologies wanted to, I could see them agreeing
some common upper level concepts, or in some cases even merging. If
particular ontology ambassadors are in a position to agree to working
with specific other ontologies to this end, then I think that would make
a good news story. (08)
I propose this paragraph is deleted. If others agreed, something
reflecting the more limited ambitions I identify above might replace
this. (09)
MU> I heartily disagree. I think this is a good paragraph. In fact, I'm
confused Matthew as to what exactly you disagree with. You are not clear
about that. Your comment don't suggest obvious conflict.
-- (010)
Following on from that in the Conclusions in Brief (011)
"(2) Each of the existing upper ontologies differs in specifics of
implementation, but we all agree that use of some formally defined
common upper ontology is the most cost-effective method for achieving
scalable semantic interoperability." (012)
Delete "common" (013)
MU> I heartily agree again. If we delete 'common', then there is no need
for a UO summit. We can use any old UO of which there will be 100s. (014)
"(5) As one means of interrelating the existing upper ontologies, we
plan to explore the possibility of creating a common subset ontology
that will be accurately translatable into each of the linked upper
ontologies.
In addition to making the existing upper ontologies more easily
accessible, this can provide a simple but powerful tool to allow users
to explore creation of interoperable systems with basic reasoning
capability on a pilot scale." (015)
I think this is fine, as it is not too specific and would allow the
kinds of outcomes I have suggested as realistic above. (016)
Regards (017)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell International
Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (018)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|