Azamat wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
> I have to recognize your sophisticated versatility in many other
> sophistical refutations, not only in ad hominen. Sometimes, it is not
> so bad to be a formal logician.
>
>
>
> Once more, "The Forum dedicated itself to some high cause and
> activity, which seems increasingly drenching by offhand
> debates" plainly meant that no need to hotly discuss here such
> extraneous issues as the SW languages. All this stuff, RDF with its
> sequels, OWL with its subsequences, and what next, has been openly
> criticised on the SW forum; since for any unprejudiced mind it is
> plain that the formal languages are conceptually defective as real
> ontologies and could not be the genuine standards. And here John has
> the big point. But let the dead bury their dead.
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Let me remind that the whole thread was initiated by Steven Ray with
> the large purpose; it is of use to repeat his message: [We have now
> established the overall objective for this year's ontology summit
> (see:
> _
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009#nid1Q2F_ )
> and the following conversation breakout suggests itself. What might be
> productive is to have people sign up for one or more of these aspects
> of the problem, with the aim of producing some concrete results and
> recommendations prior to the face-to-face meeting. Specifically:
>
> 1) Background:
>
> Compilation of existing ontological representations of standards,
> along with their associated definitions – conformance classes, testing
> suites and methodologies
>
> 2) Participants - identification and outreach:
>
> Organizations that should participate or be represented, e.g. NATO,
> UN/CEFACT, ISO, OAGi, NCBO, OASIS, OMG, …
>
> 3) Technical discussion
>
> 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing
> a standard?
>
> 2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?]
> should be applied to ontologies that are used to establish a standard?
>
> 3. What kinds of standards lend themselves to the
> use of ontologies as their representation?
>
> 4. What ontological languages are best suited to
> represent standards?
>
> 4) Strategic vision and roadmap
>
> Articulating a stretch vision, and the steps
> needed to get there. What do we think information standards are going
> to look like 20 years from now? Who are the movers to get us there?
> Who are the enablers and stakeholders? This is an environment where we
> can be bold.
>
> I encourage everyone to identify themselves with one or more of these
> activities, and we can set up wiki pages to hold the results. Just as
> last year, we will especially need people to synthesize the
> conversations under each of these activities on a wiki page, as we
> proceed. If we divide up these tasks, we can make a significant
> contribution in a short time, without having to abandon our day jobs!
>
> Let's see how much we can accomplish together. ]
>
> Then I suggested: [For the rest 2-3 months, the Forum has time to
> debate and decide on a principal matter: which general world model is
> most fitting to science, arts, technology, commerce and industry, to
> conclude if "Standard Ontology: a single malt or blended".] I
> propose to avoid digressions, diversions and excursions, if there is a
> serious intention to deliver some outsanding ontology product, or at
> least to give it a good try.
>
>
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
>
> Pahos, Moscow
>
>
http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
>
>