Re: SUO: RE: Topic Maps
Collegues,
After the Matthew's appeals:
WMMSGU> I haven't seen anyone else pick up on this proposal by Chris Angus.
and
WMMSGU> Are we undertaking an exercise for intellectual satisfaction, or do we want
WMMSGU> to make some mark upon the world?
there are some messages already and one from Katherine Sinitsa -
with an intention to bridge "the neighbours": "Some time ago we discussed the need of
more intelligent way to represent terminology-related information.
Topic Map seems to offer a solution".
The question "to look around" has been arisen already in the
discussion (for example -
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg02323.html ).
(As for me than thanks to Chris Angus proposal I am a member
of the XTM mailing list already).
The standard evolution Natural Selection process among multiple
activities will divide "leaders" and "outsiders" and this can be
"dangerous" for the SUO . There must be done some constructive thing
and the proposal about a "terminology-related information" suppose is
interesting (of course it must be much more complex and structured
"intellectual portal" than Phil's SUO Glossary -
https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk ).
There is one more activity in that direction in the "Materials"
community - under the ISO TC184/SC4/WG3 (see below). Suppose it must be very
interesting for the SUO too .
Regards,
Leonid
============================================================
There will be a WG3 Forum on the Use of Classification Structures and
Library References in Funchal, Wednesday 2001-02-21 from 1730 to 1900.
The document WG3 N997, available from SOLIS
(http://www.nist.gov/sc4/wg_qc/wg3/n997/) establishes the context for this
forum and lists some items for discussion.
The tentative agenda is as follows:
Note taker / Agenda / Attendance list
Introduction - Norman Swindells
Relationship between PLIB, ERDL (POSC/CAESAR and STEPLIB) and MathML - David
Leal
PLCS view - Nigel Shaw
The NATO Codification System as a semantic basis for building PLIB
dictionaries - Guy Pierra
JEMIMA PLIB dictionary on measuring instruments - Hiroshi Murayama
Discussion
Action items / Adjourn
WMMSGU> Dear Colleagues,
WMMSGU> I haven't seen anyone else pick up on this proposal by Chris Angus.
WMMSGU> Topic Maps is slated as the infrastructure for the way that semantics on the
WMMSGU> web are going to be managed.
WMMSGU> So I have a question:
WMMSGU> Are we undertaking an exercise for intellectual satisfaction, or do we want
WMMSGU> to make some mark upon the world?
WMMSGU> If we wait before getting involved with Topic Maps, then some other group
WMMSGU> will grab the opportunity, and we risk being consigned to the dustbin of
WMMSGU> irrelevance (the Betamax of ontologies).
WMMSGU> Let me put it the other way. If we don't want to be an ontology for the web,
WMMSGU> what do we want to be an ontology for?
WMMSGU> Some responses please?
WMMSGU> Regards
WMMSGU> Matthew
WMMSGU> ============================================
WMMSGU> Matthew West
WMMSGU> Operations & Asset Management
WMMSGU> Shell Services International
WMMSGU> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
WMMSGU> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
WMMSGU> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
WMMSGU> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
WMMSGU> http://www.shellservices.com/
WMMSGU> ============================================
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
>> Sent: 09 February 2001 16:02
>> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>> Subject: SUO: Topic Maps
>>
>>
>>
>> There has been considerable discussion at times on this list
>> as to the form
>> in which the SUO should be published. Some of that
>> discussion just recently
>> has been about what needs to be documented as the work
>> proceeds and the
>> structure of the ontology but much of it has been about language, in
>> particular the role of SUO-KIF as a normative form and the
>> possibility of
>> backing this up with an informative form, possibly in
>> controlled english.
>>
>> Just recently I have been involved in the final stages of XTM
>> - the XML
>> version of the Topic Map paradigm. It strikes me that there is a very
>> natural symbiosis between ontologies and topic maps - topic maps needs
>> published ontologies in order that topic maps may be well grounded,
>> ontologies would benefit from being made available as topic
>> maps so that
>> they may be properly explained, understood and navigated,
>> particularly over
>> the web. I would therefore like to propose that we seriously
>> consider the
>> use the topic map paradigm as the overarching mechanism for
>> documenting the
>> Standard Upper Ontology, both as it evolves (that is
>> documenting the work in
>> progress) and in its final form.
>>
>> Note that my proposal does not in any way argue against
>> either the use of
>> KIF as the normative language or controlled english (or
>> whatever) as an
>> informative form.
>>
>> Further information about topic maps may be found at
WMMSGU> www.TopicMaps.org and
WMMSGU> access may be gained to the draft specification of XTM 1.0.
WMMSGU> What do people think?
WMMSGU> Chris Angus
WMMSGU> KALIDO Product Architect
WMMSGU> Tel: +44 16 9774 1504 / +44 20 7934 4960
WMMSGU> chris.angus@btinternet.com / chris.angus@kalido.com
WMMSGU> www.kalido.com
Best regards,
Leonid mailto:leo@mmk.ru