Dear Pat, (01)
See below. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Cassidy, Patrick
> J.
> Sent: 09 October 2005 17:03
> To: bordogna@xxxxxx; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] COSMO Working Group -- sign up!
>
>
<snip>
> One suggestion I am making is to start by trying to formalize the top
> levels of three or four classifications that are not already linked to
> an upper ontology. One of the possibilities I have begun to broach
> with other members of the COSMO-WG is for us to start by
> finding formal
> definitions, using one or more upper ontologies, for the semantic
> relations in the UMLS semantic network. (06)
MW: What is this? Where is it available? (07)
> As it turns out, Olivier
> Bodenreider, one of the COSMO-WG members, said that he is actually
> gearing up to do just that:
>
> [OB]
> >> Lowell Vizenor and I are in the process of re-analyzing
> the SN (both
>
> >> semantic types and relations) and to align it with upper-level
> >> ontologies, particularly BFO and DOLCE. This work is just about to
> start.
>
> I don't know yet whether the way he intends to proceed will allow
> close collaboration, or even whether he is willing to share
> his results
> in real time so we can avoid diverging on the upper ontology. But I
> hope that this can be one part of the initial COSMO-WG effort. There
> are other reasons for using DOLCE and BFO, as well as OpenCyc
> and SUMO. (08)
MW: I would hope to add ISO 15926 to this list. (09)
> If we can find the time to try aligning the UMLS SN with all 4
> ontologies, it could provide us with an indication of the
> difficulty --
> perhaps impossibility -- of finding relations among these upper
> ontologies at the top levels. But this alone would not be, I think,
> impressive enough to change any minds. What I would hope is that, in
> addition to the formalization of the UMLS-SN, we could also try to
> align the top levels of the US FEA-RMO and some part of the FEA-DRM,
> and some high-level portion of the US-DoD Core Taxonomy with at least
> one of the upper ontologies, not necessarily all 4. I don't think we
> can muster enough time for all this work, but it would be a
> goal toward
> which we might aim. And Brand Niemann is under pressure to
> support the
> FEA-DRM effort, soon. (010)
MW: As some of you know I am currently running a major project to
develop a corporate data model (aka ontology) for Shell's Downstream
(after the oil is out of the ground) business. This is using ISO 15926
as its foundation ontology. (011)
> Some of the 4 already have mappings to WordNet, which we might want
> to verify to be sure they conform to the intention of the COSMO
> interpretation.
> If the COSMO-WG decides that this is not impossible and is worth
> trying, this should be a tractable subset of high-level concepts that
> will allow us to get some evidence on whether we can find the minimal
> top-level ontology that will suffice to unify just these limited but
> diverse domain classifications, within the minimal time we can divert
> to the effort. It could tell us a lot. This is just my own
> suggestion
> at this time, and we have just begun discussion of this by email.
> An issue that will probably arise, but for which I have no
> suggestions at this time, is whether we can find some
> application, even
> a simple one, that will serve to begin testing any ontology structures
> that we adopt. I presume that one or more FOL or DL logical
> inferencing techniques will serve as an initial reality check.
>
> When I get more detail from Olivier as to how he plans to
> proceed, I
> will send a note to the COSMO-WG list. Meanwhile, I anticipate that
> there will be other suggestions.
>
> Pat
>
>
> 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 Roberto
> Bordogna
> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 11:25 AM
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] COSMO Working Group -- sign up!
>
> Patrick,
> I'm interested in your Common Semantic Model sub-working
> group.
>
> Only I don't really know what kind of practical contributions
> could I produce in your WG from remote, being based in Europe where
> the best thing that I have seen so far, a semantic model
> developed by a
> number of mainly European Corporations, that I had a chance
> to revise a
> few weeks ago, could be characterized - in my opinion - as
> oversimplified, compared with the scope of a comprehensive CSM (the
> first user and the driver of a modern World-Class Common
> Semantic Model
>
> should be first of all the USA ambit because of the level complexity
> and
> of the diffusion of advanced technologies that you have).
>
> So as in IEEE 1600.1 WG, most of the time I remain silent because I
> don't like to express just opinions.
>
> If this is ok for your group I'll be glad to be added to your list.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> Roberto Bordogna.
>
> Dr. Eng. Roberto Bordogna
> Corso Magenta 32 20123 Milan Italy.
> tel 39.02.8690867
> bordogna@xxxxxx
>
>
> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 04:50, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
> > ONTACWG: Common Semantic Model Working Group
> >
> > One of the sub-working groups of ONTACWG that was formed at the Oct.
> > 5th meeting was the Common Semantic Model (COSMO) Working Group
> > (COSMO-WG, until a better name is suggested). There were a
> number at
> > the meeting who did not indicate an interest in participating in the
> > subgroup who will look into the issues of what Common Semantic Model
> to
> > adopt, and how to do it; so I would suggest that these discussion be
> > conducted by email among the subgroup, rather than by email to the
> > whole list. But the discussions will be open, and if
> anyone wants to
> > just lurk and listen to the email discussions about the Common
> Semantic
> > Model send a note to myself or the list, and your name will be added
> to
> > the circulation list for those notes.
> >
> > We have begun to discuss how to approach the question of deciding on
> a
> > COSMO, so if you have any interest in participating, please let me
> know
> > ASAP. Members may join or leave at any time, but we will want to
> make
> > some progress as soon as possible, and some decisions may have to be
> > made soon.
> >
> > Current members of the WG are:
> > Eric Peterson; Dagobert Soergel; Roy Roebuck; Olivier Bodenreider;
> Pat
> > Cassidy; Antoinette Arsic; James Schoening; Gary Berg-Cross; Adam
> Pease
> >
> > If your name is not on this list and you want to participate or
> listen
> > in, send me a note. There is one remote participant who
> indicated an
> > interest, but the name was not clear over the telephone; please let
> me
> > know who you are.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatin
gWG
-- (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|