[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Why Build Yet Another Upper Ontology?

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:30:27 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGMEFLGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I liked what I saw in the ISO 15926 Part 1, where there is a general
ontology.    (01)

http://www.infowebml.ws/ECM4.5/ECM4.5.html    (02)

It also has the flavor of a object oriented class hierarchy, and thus has
the usefulness that so many programmers have become aware of.  Inheritance,
encapsulation,    (03)

I have a question for those here.    (04)

Why is ISO 15926 not sufficient as a general ontology for web services
across all "business exchanges".   Has the generality of this set of 201
entities been tested in other domains - not oil and gas.   Is there a move
towards ending the standard setting process and actually using this specific
set of "entities" in oil and gas?    (05)

As long as the standards are not stable, the businesses that benifit are
limitied to those few that are developing standards.  The larger
(theoritical) value from the notion of Semantic Web (that part which is
correct) is not accessable, if the bulk of the standards are not set.    (06)

If there was an ontology hub (freely available sets of entities such as ISO
15926) where each industry adopted and modified (see the original ISO 15926)
would we see the end to the standardization processes?    (07)

I mean, the end to uncertaintly.  I do not mean a closed system where every
element is set forever.    (08)

I would also like to point to OASIS standards    (09)

http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php    (010)

in particular to    (011)

which is an detailed set of specifications for electronic business XML
collaboration protocol profiles.    (012)

for example:    (013)

The role element has the following attributes:
   a required name attribute
   a fixed xlink:type attribute
   a required xlink:href attribute    (014)

I ask again, why the standardization process is not coming to a completion,
given that specifications like that OASIS specification were largely
completed in 2002.    (015)

see also
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/201.htm    (016)

I am reminded of John Sowa's recent note to me regarding the need to
legislate standards.    (017)

In a note from    (018)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/206.htm    (019)

we do not see any reference to OASIS.  Why is this?    (020)

In summary, a reference ontology seems to be about concepts used within a
domain space, (I am thinking about the domain of all e-commerce activity).
So the    (021)

http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php#cppav2    (022)

could be a reference ontology that has specific specifications that allow
interoperability between "things" that need to interoperate.  Why is this
not the end to the standardization process?    (023)

Again, the imposition of a "logic" or something like lattices for use in
inferencing, seems to be the imposition that kills clarity.    (024)

A hub of reference models is what the B-2-B transaction space needs.  Yes?    (025)

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    (026)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>