From: Arsic,
Antoinette [mailto:aarsic@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
12:37 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum]
Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems
From:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dagobert Soergel
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005
12:08 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion;
ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum]
Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems
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