|
We do not have the resources to create an ontology library system.
Rather we should adopt one once we are further along. At that point
we can use the criteria in the Ding & Fensel article but need to
update the survey. Right now we need an ontology registry, which is a much more light-weight proposition. Since much information for constructing full-fledged rigorous ontologies can be gleaned from other types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), we actually need a KOS registry. There are many attempts at creating such registries (going back to the sixties), but none has been successful in the sense of being maintained continuously. However, it is now possible to set up a web-enabled database where authors (individuals or organizations) can register their own ontologies and other KOS in a structured format. (A WIKI is not the best tool for this.) Such a registry should also cover use cases for ontologies I am working on possibly using a database tool for this purpose that was prototyped by a government agency. Attached are two documents, one a set of evaluation criteria for KOS and one giving templates for describing KOS and KOS use cases in a database. This materials have been developed with more traditional schemes such as MeSH or Snomed or the Art and Architecture Thesaurus in mind, so they need to be extended to capture characteristics and uses of formal ontologies. In the registry, the KOS must be identified by subject domain. Many different approaches to this can coexist, and the scheme that Roy suggests can certainly be one of these approaches. The concepts to be used for this subject indexing of KOS need to be understandable for people but need not to be as carefully specified as concepts in a formal ontology. We formed a subgroup to consider registries. It seems that we need to establish for sure who wanted to participate. Pat and I believe the group includes at least the people listed below, but we also believe there were more. So please add your name if you are interested. The group should meet soon to work on the problems outlined above and get this going, as a registry is a step that should logically precede working on comparing ontologies. DS Ontology/KOS registry WG Pat Cassidy Roy Roebuck Olivier Bodenreider Dagobert Soergel At 10/22/2005 01:18 PM, Roy Roebuck wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
