SUO: Re: RE: Topic Maps
I just browsed some publications related to the Topic Maps and agree with
Matthew that it must be an excellent mechanism to present both "work in
progress" and final results.
There might be some technical difficulties related to the implementation,
but that's what I would be happy to try for the Learning Technology
Glossary. Some time ago we discussed the need of more intelligent way to
represent terminology-related information. Topic Map seems to offer a
solution.
Katherine Sinitsa,
IEEE LTSC Glossary WG chair
----- Original Message -----
From: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: SUO: RE: Topic Maps
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I haven't seen anyone else pick up on this proposal by Chris Angus.
>
> Topic Maps is slated as the infrastructure for the way that semantics on
the
> web are going to be managed.
>
> So I have a question:
>
> Are we undertaking an exercise for intellectual satisfaction, or do we
want
> to make some mark upon the world?
>
> If we wait before getting involved with Topic Maps, then some other group
> will grab the opportunity, and we risk being consigned to the dustbin of
> irrelevance (the Betamax of ontologies).
>
> Let me put it the other way. If we don't want to be an ontology for the
web,
> what do we want to be an ontology for?
>
> Some responses please?
>
> Regards
> Matthew
> ============================================
> Matthew West
> Operations & Asset Management
> Shell Services International
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> http://www.shellservices.com/
> ============================================
>
> > -----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
> www.TopicMaps.org and
> access may be gained to the draft specification of XTM 1.0.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Chris Angus
> KALIDO Product Architect
> Tel: +44 16 9774 1504 / +44 20 7934 4960
> chris.angus@btinternet.com / chris.angus@kalido.com
> www.kalido.com
>