|
I would like to participate in the Ontology/KOS registry WG.
MS Information Sciences, ALA
accredited.
Antoinette Arsic
Sr.
Information Systems Engineer,
The MITRE Corporation
703-337-9016
(VOIP)
*703-983-5286 (new office number, was
883)
*443-567-2703 (new cell)
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
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5D72C.9A2912C9"
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:
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)
|