I am separating out this part of the thread.
I apologize if some of this is obvious. It is often "hard to
understand what is understood". (01)
This is a suggested plan of work for the upper ontology subgroup (02)
1 Collect suggested upper ontologies (03)
2 Compare and determine differences
2.1 In elements (presence / absence and, more difficult,
definition)
2.2 in relationships (04)
3 Try to resolve differences, creating a superstructure that incorporates
the non-contradictory parts of various schemes
3.1 By adding elements
3.2 By adding relationships (05)
4 Articulate the remaining differences so that they are clearly
understood (06)
In addition, the subgroup should deal with ontologies that can be
reused in many contexts, such as an ontology of time concepts. (07)
My reworking of the WordNet top level (attached) may be useful in this context. (08)
DS (09)
Dagobert Soergel
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD 20742-4345
Office: 301-405-2037 Home: 703-823-2840 Mobile: 703-585-2840
OFax: 301-314-9145 HFax: 703-823-6427
dsoergel@xxxxxxx www.dsoergel.com (010)
WordnetTopLevelDSoergel.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (01)
|