Thanks, Barry. (01)
Attention ALL conveners (especially Barry and Adam): (02)
In view of the fact that there are further inputs after we had closed
the discussion on the "finalize joint communique" segment yesterday
afternoon, most of us decided to get together at half an hour (i.e.
8:30am EST) before we were originally scheduled to start this morning,
to conclude (I won't use the word 'discuss') on what and how we'll do
with/present the 'Joint Communique' in the afternoon. If the remote
conveners can be available, please join us. (03)
I've just set up the conference call for the purpose:
Dial-in Number: +1-641-696-6600 (Iowa, US)
Participant Access Code 87376# (04)
Question for Barry, I will take it that your "I do not press on any
of them (BS suggested improvements)" means that you will still
adopt/endorse the clauses AS-IS (from yesterday afternoon) and that we
can cite them as being "Unanimously agreed" on, or include your name
in the "Endorsed by:" (where we do not have unanimous agreement). (05)
Regards. =ppy
-- (06)
On 3/15/06, Smith, Barry <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [2] With the success and expansion of the internet, the potential for
> achieving semantic interoperability across interconnected applications has
> become widely recognized, and the number of teams and individuals creating
> knowledge classifications
>
> I would prefer 'ontologies' rather than 'knowledge classifications'
>
>
> [6] Candidate conceptual building blocks
>
> I have been fighting for years against the ambiguous and confusing uses of
> 'conceptual' in the ontology literature
> Try
>
> 'The building blocks for interoperability'
>
>
> [10] We will articulate the reasons for the important differences in the
> upper ontologies.
>
> 'the important' sounds twee; 'the major' sounds better
>
> I think all of these suggestions would represent improvements, but I do not
> press on any of them, given the shortness of time.
>
> Do you know, incidentally, for how many minutes I spoke yesterday (I am
> beginning to fear that my slides for today are too many.)?
> BS
>
>
>
> At 12:19 PM 3/15/2006, you wrote:
>
> Oops ... wrong link ... ERRATA:
>
> > Refer to the ten points reached at today's afternoon session at:
>
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit/JointCommuniqueDraft#nidLNL
>
> Sorry. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On 3/15/06, Smith, Barry <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Is this the right file? I cannot see 'ten points' here.
> > BS
> >
> >
> > At 11:30 PM 3/14/2006, you wrote:
> >
> > Adam,
> >
> > While I am not running the meeting, we still have agenda items to be
> > covered. I don't think we can go back to a discussion mode any more
> > (after spending most of the afternoon on wordsmithing the joint
> > communique) ...
> >
> > My request just now, over the phone, was: can you endorse the ten
> > points that the meeting has concluded on. I would hope so ... if there
> > are ones that you are adamantly against, then please indicate the
> > particular point number that you "will not endorse".
> >
> > Refer to the ten points reached at today's afternoon session at:
> >
> http://www.project10x.com/downloads/MDdownloads/MDprezo/UO20060315.ppt
> >
> > Same request to Barry Smith too. [attn: Barry]
> >
> > Thanks. =ppy
> > --
>
>
> > On 3/14/06, John A. Bateman <bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [Adam]
> > >
> > > > Rephrase [6]
> > > >
> > > > Candidate conceptual building blocks can now be found in
> > > > several upper ontologies, reflecting decades of research and
> > > > development.
> > > >
> > > > as [6]
> > > >
> > > > Several candidate upper ontologies are available,
> > > > reflecting decades of research and development.
> > >
> > > Clarification: the point of the 'building blocks'
> > > was precisely to get around and away from
> > > 'monolithic' ontologies. The *candidate*
> > > building blocks should include theories
> > > of time, of participation, of constitution, etc.
> > > rather than a single ontology.
> > >
> > > > Those that are not currently publicly available should be made so.
> > >
> > > Nice. But enforceable?
> > >
> > > John.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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 (07)
|