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

[richard.y.jordan@xxxxxxx]

I do not wish to participate.

Rick Jordan, FAA
   Email:  Richard.Y.Jordan@xxxxxxx

"Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI)" <warzeld@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent by: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

10/24/2005 05:39 PM

Please respond to
ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

Me too. 
 
Denise

---

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
 
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)

---

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  
_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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)