[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:43:07 -0400
Message-id: <>
Responding to Roy:    (01)

>Excellent!  I've reviewed the material Gary cites, and agree that an 
>"ontology library" capability would be very useful in the COSMO, 
>ONTAC, SICOP, and Web-Service collaborations.  I also submit that a 
>"natural" outline of ontologies (i.e., packages of functions, 
>processes, and process input/control/output/mechanism resources such 
>as metadata, data, funds, skills) as services could be organized 
>using the General Ontology (GO) as outlined below:
>1. Location Ontologies/Services (i.e., location-specific for: 
>physical/geospatial/geodetic and postal locations; virtual locations 
>such as URI, URL, Phone/Fax Numbers, IP Addresses, and UNC; and 
>conceptual locations such as "region", "area", "placename".)    (02)

A place name is not a location.
A "placename" is also not a location.
If we are to have a natural ontology -- an ontology people will feel 
comfortable with using and trust to be rigorous, we have to be very 
careful with distinctions such as this.    (03)

>2. Organization Ontologies/Services (i.e., organization-specific for 
>government, commercial, and private organization entities)    (04)

And we should avoid use of '/', unless it is very clearly defined 
what it means.    (05)

>3. Organization Unit Ontologies/Services (i.e., 
>organization-unit-specific for staff offices, program offices, 
>project offices, teams, positions, roles)    (06)

There is a problem if we have as a top-level organizing principle for 
a general ontology a very specific distinction between organizations 
on the one hand and organization units on the other.    (07)

>4. Function Ontologies/Services (i.e., function-specific "what is 
>done" models for executive, production, and support functions, into 
>which most published ontologies and business-component services 
>would be categorized)    (08)

And there is the same problem here: the distinctions between 
executive functions, production functions, etc. do not belong in the 
top level of a general ontology.    (09)

>4.3  Support Function Ontologies
>4.3.1  Human Capital Management Ontologies    (010)

Reminds me, again, of HL7:    (011)

Animal =def animal-of-interest to the Personnel Management Domain    (012)

BS     (013)

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    (014)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>