new ontology references/core concepts
Adam,
Now that the list of artifacts for SUO has been broadened to include
WordNet, and Matthew West in response to David Whitten has suggested work
on "core concepts", it may be worth noting the following effort:
In July 1998 a number of very able people met intensively for a solid week
in a subgroup of a small and carefully organized "ontology summit" at
Heidelberg sponsored by the Tschira Foundation to gain consensus on core
concepts for an upper-level ontology. Their effort went in tandem with
discussion in a second subgroup that addressed interlingual upper level
developed by five language teams working on European WordNets. An
authority from the Japanese EDS was also present.
Ambitious plans for publication never bore fruit, but the core lists must
still exist, and last I heard the Tschira Foundation was also preparing a
transcript of the proceedings. Several contributors to the SUO and
onto-std lists were intimately involved in this work. Perhaps someone
could share a brief summary of this work and any material that builds upon
it or supersedes it. Even the bare listing, without comment, would give
a wider group an idea of what sorts of core concepts might be expected.
Also, in order to array further the prior work, one should mention that
Chris Partridge has modestly neglected to cite his published work on
business ontology reengineering and integration: *Business Objects: A
practical handbook.*
Lee
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I agree with David, and think we should at least start by trying to find
> some basic minima that is common ground.
>
> I am rather used to integrating different models (ontologies) by looking for
> underlying concepts when there appears to be an incompatibility between
> different models that independently make sense. We seem to have a number of
> starting points. Why not start by trying to integrate them and see how far
> we get?
>
> By the way, if my experience is anything to go by, I should set some very
> low expectations on what is really agreed within 5 months. If we could agree
> some 20-50 core concepts I would be pleasantly surprised.