Re: new ontology references/core concepts
Lee,
I think it would be a very good idea to cite the Heidelberg work if
someone can produce the content that was agreed upon at that meeting.
Adam
At 09:16 AM 6/22/2000 -0400, Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571