[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Upper ontology / common semantic model

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:06:52 -0400
Message-id: <>
As Olivier will confirm, there are many things wrong with the 
UMLS-SN, which is why an effort is currently on-going to rebuild it.
BS    (01)

At 06:30 PM 10/9/2005, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>    That looks like an excellent summary of a methodology to find
>commonality among the existing UOs.
>    I mentioned in a previous note that I though that it might be
>helpful to focus initially on that part of existing UOs required to
>formalize and relate several existing Knowledge Classifications such as
>the UMLS-SN, FEA-RMO top level, and DoD Core Taxonomy top level.  Do
>you view such a focus as consistent with the overall plan you describe?
>Patrick Cassidy
>MITRE Corporation
>260 Industrial Way
>Eatontown, NJ 07724
>Mail Stop: MNJE
>Phone: 732-578-6340
>Cell: 908-565-4053
>Fax: 732-578-6012
>Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dagobert
>Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 3:19 PM
>To: ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ontac-forum] Upper ontology / common semantic model
>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".
>This is a suggested plan of work for the upper ontology subgroup
>1       Collect suggested upper ontologies
>2       Compare and determine differences
>2.1             In elements (presence / absence and, more difficult,
>2.2             in relationships
>3       Try to resolve differences, creating a superstructure that
>          the non-contradictory parts of various schemes
>3.1             By adding elements
>3.2             By adding relationships
>4       Articulate the remaining differences so that they are clearly
>In addition, the subgroup should deal with ontologies that can be
>reused in many contexts, such as an ontology of time concepts.
>My reworking of the WordNet top level (attached) may be useful in this
>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:
>OFax:   301-314-9145        HFax: 703-823-6427
>dsoergel@xxxxxxx     www.dsoergel.com
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
>To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>Community Wiki: 
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (02)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>