Re: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
John and Ron,
The development of a guidance document would be well-within the
scope of this working group. It would require a new Project
Authorization Request (PAR). I believe IEEE standards fall into the
categories of standards, recommended practices, and guides.
I'd suggest that if anyone is interested in pursuing this, I'll
set up a separate discussion list for focused discussion. I'd suggest
making a little progress before submitting a PAR.
Jim Schoening
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:15:53 +0100 Ronald Cornet <R.Cornet@amc.uva.nl>
writes:
> At 23:43 24-11-04 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >That's why I suggested that we address the problem of
> >working on a document about principles for developing
> >and defining ontologies. I think that could be a
> >document that we could agree to more quickly than
> >a complete upper ontology, and it would be very
> >welcome for a very wide audience.
>
>
> I second that!
> There IS a need for a description of such principles.
> In the field of medicine, much work is being done, much good work is
> being
> done.
> But the question remains whether the good work is being done good.
>
> Regards, Ronald
>
>
> ######################################################################
> Ronald Cornet, M.Sc. email:
> R.Cornet@amc.uva.nl
> dept. of Medical Informatics phone: +31 (0)20 566
> 5188
> Academic Medical Center, Room J1B-114 fax: +31 (0)20 691
> 9840
> P.O.Box 22700
> 1100 DE Amsterdam
> The Netherlands 'The truth is out
> there'
>
>