[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:34:43 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGMEPDGNAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Roy    (01)

I looked up the URL:    (02)

http://one-world-is.com.    (03)

and realized that it might take a while to find out why you find in your
work an ontology that is "good enough".  Is there an RDF or OWL file or some
outline of the concepts in the ontology that you refer to?    (04)

John and Rick,    (05)

I just finished reading the Top Quadrant white paper    (06)

http://www.topquadrant.com/documents/TQFEARMO.pdf    (07)

I would like to share some comments or questions I had while reading the 43
excellent papges.    (08)

1) The white paper starts out properly stating that the Federal Enterprize
Architecture reference models were written in natural language and that the
process of formalization involved an intrepretation activity by a human.
Different humans will formalize the reference model differently, with
similarities and differences holding importnat viewpoint issues.    (09)

Of course this is the main issue that is discussed in previous emails.  I
would restate John's comment about only needing the merge small parts of
ontologies when a real interaction needs to take place.  How this merge
occurs is the focus of the work on the Web Services Modeling Ontology (as
discussed at:    (010)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/201.htm    (011)

The work on the draft (Nov 15th, 2005) OASIS
Reference Model for Service Oriented Architectures    (012)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/201.htm    (013)

has a consistant view to the Top Quadrant white paper.    (014)

****    (015)

The white paper introduces the OWL standardization process as if completed
and completely satisfactory.  But this hids the fact that Protege, and I
assume that Top Quadrant used Protege to encode the FEA RMO?    (016)

can anyone comment on this up to now?    (017)

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    (018)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>