Adam,
ISO 159256 is an ontology, and an implementation in OWL is
available. ISO 11179 is a specification for a registry. Perhaps you
had the two mixed up? (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 12:08 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Cc: Mike Davis
Subject: Re: [uos-convene] UOS Agenda and Logistical Details (04)
Chris,
My understanding was that the subject of the meeting was formal
upper ontologies. Particular general purpose ontologies implemented
in a particular logical and computation language.
My understanding was that BFO is a collection of published ideas,
rather than a particular implemented model in a formal logical and
computational language, and that DOLCE incorporated the ideas from
BFO. I certainly respect BFO and no slight is intended. If there is
a particular file in something like KIF/CL or CycL for BFO, as there
is for Cyc, SUMO and DOLCE, then this would indeed be an omission. I
would welcome correction if I'm mistaken.
For 11179 it's not a formal upper ontology. That does not imply a
value judgement. It's simply a different sort of product that does
not have (at least to my knowledge) a formal semantics as one does
for an ontology implemented in a language like CL. (05)
Adam (06)
At 08:52 AM 3/10/2006, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>Folks,
>> Here's a revision to explicitly schedule discussion of relating
>>the ontologies together. I would stand by the division between the
>>three formal upper ontologies and other ontologies (formal or
>>informal, upper or domain specific, implemented in a particular
>>computational language or not), but agree that others should be
>>able to present, as suggested for Wednesday morning. I've extended
>>the proposed time so no one should feel slighted.
>>
>>Preparation meeting
>>Tuesday - 8:30am
>>Purposes: (1) Introduce the three formal upper ontologies
>> (2) Propose a joint public statement
>> (3) Organize a proposal for joint funded work
>>
>>8:30am Nicola Guarino - DOLCE (with Barry and Aldo if
desired)
>>9:30am Doug Lenat - Cyc
>>10:30am Adam Pease - SUMO
>
>I don't understand why Barry/BFO is not here, Adam; BFO purports to
>be as comprehensive as the three above, at least qua ULO, does he
>not? And he's not exactly a newcomer (though I suppose his being a
>philosopher counts against him a priori :-). I suspect Matthew West
>would make the same claim for his work. What are your reasons for
>singling out these three?
>
>-chris
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (07)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|