| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
http://suo.ieee.org/, could be renewed, updated, and some discarded. Also, it is a good time for the Forum to discuss in more details John's plan recently proposed, what is working and what is not working here:
1. A lightweight, low-cost foundation, an initial version of which could be developed relatively quickly without a large investment of cash, but which could evolve into something much more complete. (08) 2. The initial components of the FO would take advantage of resources that have proved to be successful in practical applications. But the principles should also have a sound logical basis to enable a smooth evolution and transition toward a more complete system. (09) 3. A simple, but widely used resource is WordNet. Its advantage is wide coverage, and its lack of detailed axioms enables it to be adapted to multiple purposes without creating contradictions. However, many aspects of WordNet, such as its top-level categories, would require revisions or replacement before being adopted and adapted into the FO type hierarchy. Many other resources could also be added, but with considerable revisions to avoid conflicts. The FO hierarchy would initially have very few axioms, of which the primary ones would be the subtype/supertype relations. (010) 4. Other important resources are the standards for dates, times, geographical locations, units of measurement, monetary units, chemical elements and compounds, etc. The terminology and the mathematical relations among terms should be related to the FO hierarchy and made available for all applications. (011) 5. Organizations for the sciences, engineering, law, medicine, businesses, governments, agriculture, etc., have established standardized terminology with standard definitions and detailed specifications. These terms should be related to the basic FO hierarchy, but a suitable naming scheme is necessary to distinguish homonyms used in different standards and revisions. (012) 6. The development of the FO should be coordinated with existing bodies such as ISO, W3C, and various governmental and non- governmental organizations. The naming scheme should enable different bodies to control their own terminology while relating them to the basic FO type hierarchy.
---- Original Message ----- From: "John Bateman" <bateman@uni-bremen.de>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
Briefly, concerning:As John mentioned early on in his message, there is an Open Ontology Repository effort at Ontolog, which is an open community of practice. You might join and post to the ontolog OOR list.and since this discussion here is going towards standardisation, I refer you to the following initiative also as I haven't seen it mentioned yet (but have only been skimming in any case (and will continue in this mode as far as I can see)): ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 is the Working Group that develops international standards for metadata and related technologies and particularly within that: ISO/IEC 19763, Information Technology -- Metamodel Framework for Interoperability (MFI) which includes proposals for standardised registries. http://metadata-stds.org/metadata-stds/19763/index.html I know that some people know about some of these things, but it would be good for all people to know about all of these things. Is there any registry of standardisation issues with succinct descriptions of their intended scope of application out there? Seems like pure chaos at present to me with countless duplications of effort. Just the kind of thing interoperable ontologies (with strong heterogeneous modularity: but I won't bother with that old record at this point) should clear up: a (very) dirty job, but it would be good if someone did it... :-)John Bateman