From mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za Tue Jul 4 13:52:46 2017 From: mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za (Maria Keet) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 13:52:46 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement Message-ID: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> Dear all, The next Education Committee meeting is scheduled as follows: --> Meeting n.22 Thu, July 06, 2017 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST (cf. [1]) Skype:https://join.skype.com/a36OQeLjaIzd Chat :http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/iaoa_edu_20170706 Please find an agenda proposal below and suggest further items that you would like to discuss. Best regards, Maria [1] local meeting date and time(s) https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170608T1430&p1=56&am=45 = 22st Meeting of the IAOA Techn. Comm. on Education - July 06, 2017 = == participants == expecting: MK Maria Keet FL Frank Loebe SL Sandra Lovrencic TS Todd Schneider AW Andrea Westerinen ZW Zena Wood regrets: < none > long-term unavailability: < none > == agenda == 0. adoption of agenda 1. update on FOIS and ISAO 2018 a. dates b. proposals for PC and general chairs c. lecturers proposing lectures 2. wiki maintenance a. term/definition updates 1: formatting [FL] 2: contents b. textbook updates c. other updates? 3. pub quiz @ wiki: status [ZW,MK] a. quiz draft in Wordpress [ZW] 4. AOB 5. next meeting(s) a. A break for August? == long-term agenda == A. ontology textbook effort [-> separate specific meetings] * report at EduC meeting once in a while B. Ontology Competition [suspended] C. contact [ontolog-forum] hinting at definitions in the termlist, reminding of connection to discussion of types of ontologies [1] [1]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/PgKc7rIjGrU/discussion == resources == * Education Committee Wiki http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de Wed Jul 5 00:45:23 2017 From: frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de (Frank Loebe) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 00:45:23 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement In-Reply-To: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> References: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> Message-ID: <11e4a13e-2179-af27-a66a-e706aa5554a1@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Dear all, apologies for not noticing a time issue earlier, but according to our last minutes [A], we had intended to meet an hour later than in recent meetings: < quote [A] > == next meeting == FrankLoebe: [agreement] Jul 6, 2017, an hour later than this time FrankLoebe: i.e. new time: 09:30 EDT / 15:30 CEST Personally, I had planned with that time earlier and now have the issue of a dentist's appointment starting at 13:30 CEST, which should take ca. one hour. If we stick to the time now announced, I'd probably run 15-20 minutes late (if everything works well at the dentist.) Here are the options again: (1) according to latest announcement 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1430&p1=56&am=45 (2) according to last meeting minutes (n.21 of Jun 09, 2017 [A]) 06:30 PDT / 09:30 EDT / 14:30 BST / 15:30 CEST 10:30 BRT / 15:30 SAST https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1530&p1=56&am=45 --> Shall we stick to (1) or to (2)? Personally, I'd prefer (2) over (1), but that's just my view. If no one else has any issues with the time announced, I'll try my best to join then. I'm sorry to have detected the/my conflict only now. Best regards, Frank [A] file TranscriptEduTCmeeting21dd08062017.rtf http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/attachments/20170608/387777fd/attachment.bin attached to https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/iaoa-education/2017-June/000131.html ------ Original Message ------ From: Maria Keet Sent: 2017.07.04 13:52 +0200 To: IAOA Education Committee Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement > Dear all, > > The next Education Committee meeting is scheduled as follows: > > --> Meeting n.22 Thu, July 06, 2017 > 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST > 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST (cf. [1]) > > Skype:https://join.skype.com/a36OQeLjaIzd > Chat :http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/iaoa_edu_20170706 > > > Please find an agenda proposal below and suggest further items that you > would like to discuss. > > Best regards, > Maria > > > [1] local meeting date and time(s) > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170608T1430&p1=56&am=45 > > > > = 22st Meeting of the IAOA Techn. Comm. on Education - July 06, 2017 = > > == participants == > > expecting: > MK Maria Keet > FL Frank Loebe > SL Sandra Lovrencic > TS Todd Schneider > AW Andrea Westerinen > ZW Zena Wood > > regrets: < none > > > long-term unavailability: < none > > > == agenda == > > 0. adoption of agenda > > 1. update on FOIS and ISAO 2018 > a. dates > b. proposals for PC and general chairs > c. lecturers proposing lectures > > 2. wiki maintenance > a. term/definition updates > 1: formatting [FL] > 2: contents > b. textbook updates > c. other updates? > > 3. pub quiz @ wiki: status [ZW,MK] > a. quiz draft in Wordpress [ZW] > > 4. AOB > > 5. next meeting(s) > a. A break for August? > > == long-term agenda == > > A. ontology textbook effort [-> separate specific meetings] > * report at EduC meeting once in a while > > B. Ontology Competition [suspended] > > C. contact [ontolog-forum] hinting at definitions in the termlist, > reminding of connection to discussion of types of ontologies [1] > > > [1]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/PgKc7rIjGrU/discussion > > == resources == > > * Education Committee Wiki > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ From tjschneider at covad.net Wed Jul 5 01:10:12 2017 From: tjschneider at covad.net (Todd Schneider) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:10:12 -0400 Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement In-Reply-To: <11e4a13e-2179-af27-a66a-e706aa5554a1@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> References: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> <11e4a13e-2179-af27-a66a-e706aa5554a1@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Message-ID: <4f553ede-4da4-0c9f-cf41-ca5d08a15902@covad.net> Frank, Good catch. I vote for #2 (from last meeting). Todd On 7/4/17 6:45 PM, Frank Loebe wrote: > Dear all, > > apologies for not noticing a time issue earlier, but according to our > last minutes [A], we had intended to meet an hour later than in recent > meetings: > > < quote [A] > > == next meeting == > FrankLoebe: [agreement] Jul 6, 2017, an hour later than this time > FrankLoebe: i.e. new time: 09:30 EDT / 15:30 CEST > > > Personally, I had planned with that time earlier and now have the > issue of a dentist's appointment starting at 13:30 CEST, which should > take ca. one hour. If we stick to the time now announced, I'd probably > run 15-20 minutes late (if everything works well at the dentist.) > > Here are the options again: > > (1) according to latest announcement > 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST > 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1430&p1=56&am=45 > > > (2) according to last meeting minutes (n.21 of Jun 09, 2017 [A]) > 06:30 PDT / 09:30 EDT / 14:30 BST / 15:30 CEST > 10:30 BRT / 15:30 SAST > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1530&p1=56&am=45 > > > > --> Shall we stick to (1) or to (2)? > > Personally, I'd prefer (2) over (1), but that's just my view. If no > one else has any issues with the time announced, I'll try my best to > join then. > > I'm sorry to have detected the/my conflict only now. > > Best regards, > Frank > > > [A] file TranscriptEduTCmeeting21dd08062017.rtf > > http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/attachments/20170608/387777fd/attachment.bin > > attached to > > https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/iaoa-education/2017-June/000131.html > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: Maria Keet > Sent: 2017.07.04 13:52 +0200 > To: IAOA Education Committee > Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu > 2017.07.06: announcement > >> Dear all, >> >> The next Education Committee meeting is scheduled as follows: >> >> --> Meeting n.22 Thu, July 06, 2017 >> 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST >> 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST (cf. [1]) >> >> Skype:https://join.skype.com/a36OQeLjaIzd >> Chat :http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/iaoa_edu_20170706 >> >> >> Please find an agenda proposal below and suggest further items that you >> would like to discuss. >> >> Best regards, >> Maria >> >> >> [1] local meeting date and time(s) >> >> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170608T1430&p1=56&am=45 >> >> >> >> >> = 22st Meeting of the IAOA Techn. Comm. on Education - July 06, 2017 = >> >> == participants == >> >> expecting: >> MK Maria Keet >> FL Frank Loebe >> SL Sandra Lovrencic >> TS Todd Schneider >> AW Andrea Westerinen >> ZW Zena Wood >> >> regrets: < none > >> >> long-term unavailability: < none > >> >> == agenda == >> >> 0. adoption of agenda >> >> 1. update on FOIS and ISAO 2018 >> a. dates >> b. proposals for PC and general chairs >> c. lecturers proposing lectures >> >> 2. wiki maintenance >> a. term/definition updates >> 1: formatting [FL] >> 2: contents >> b. textbook updates >> c. other updates? >> >> 3. pub quiz @ wiki: status [ZW,MK] >> a. quiz draft in Wordpress [ZW] >> >> 4. AOB >> >> 5. next meeting(s) >> a. A break for August? >> >> == long-term agenda == >> >> A. ontology textbook effort [-> separate specific meetings] >> * report at EduC meeting once in a while >> >> B. Ontology Competition [suspended] >> >> C. contact [ontolog-forum] hinting at definitions in the termlist, >> reminding of connection to discussion of types of ontologies [1] >> >> >> [1]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/PgKc7rIjGrU/discussion >> >> >> == resources == >> >> * Education Committee Wiki >> http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org > > From mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za Wed Jul 5 08:45:54 2017 From: mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za (Maria Keet) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:45:54 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement In-Reply-To: <4f553ede-4da4-0c9f-cf41-ca5d08a15902@covad.net> References: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> <11e4a13e-2179-af27-a66a-e706aa5554a1@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> <4f553ede-4da4-0c9f-cf41-ca5d08a15902@covad.net> Message-ID: <5da64f53-7a3a-18a9-a023-05ba0bade74d@cs.uct.ac.za> Hi All, I had it as 15:30 in my agenda, but thought I had mixed it up like last time and missed the note in the meeting minutes. 15:30 CEST/SAST it is then. Regards, Maria On 05/07/2017 1:10, Todd Schneider wrote: > Frank, > > Good catch. I vote for #2 (from last meeting). > > Todd > > On 7/4/17 6:45 PM, Frank Loebe wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> apologies for not noticing a time issue earlier, but according to our >> last minutes [A], we had intended to meet an hour later than in >> recent meetings: >> >> < quote [A] > >> == next meeting == >> FrankLoebe: [agreement] Jul 6, 2017, an hour later than this time >> FrankLoebe: i.e. new time: 09:30 EDT / 15:30 CEST >> >> >> Personally, I had planned with that time earlier and now have the >> issue of a dentist's appointment starting at 13:30 CEST, which should >> take ca. one hour. If we stick to the time now announced, I'd >> probably run 15-20 minutes late (if everything works well at the >> dentist.) >> >> Here are the options again: >> >> (1) according to latest announcement >> 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST >> 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST >> >> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1430&p1=56&am=45 >> >> >> (2) according to last meeting minutes (n.21 of Jun 09, 2017 [A]) >> 06:30 PDT / 09:30 EDT / 14:30 BST / 15:30 CEST >> 10:30 BRT / 15:30 SAST >> >> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170706T1530&p1=56&am=45 >> >> >> >> --> Shall we stick to (1) or to (2)? >> >> Personally, I'd prefer (2) over (1), but that's just my view. If no >> one else has any issues with the time announced, I'll try my best to >> join then. >> >> I'm sorry to have detected the/my conflict only now. >> >> Best regards, >> Frank >> >> >> [A] file TranscriptEduTCmeeting21dd08062017.rtf >> >> http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/attachments/20170608/387777fd/attachment.bin >> >> attached to >> >> https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/iaoa-education/2017-June/000131.html >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: Maria Keet >> Sent: 2017.07.04 13:52 +0200 >> To: IAOA Education Committee >> Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on >> Thu 2017.07.06: announcement >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The next Education Committee meeting is scheduled as follows: >>> >>> --> Meeting n.22 Thu, July 06, 2017 >>> 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST >>> 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST (cf. [1]) >>> >>> Skype:https://join.skype.com/a36OQeLjaIzd >>> Chat :http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/iaoa_edu_20170706 >>> >>> >>> Please find an agenda proposal below and suggest further items that you >>> would like to discuss. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Maria >>> >>> >>> [1] local meeting date and time(s) >>> >>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170608T1430&p1=56&am=45 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> = 22st Meeting of the IAOA Techn. Comm. on Education - July 06, 2017 = >>> >>> == participants == >>> >>> expecting: >>> MK Maria Keet >>> FL Frank Loebe >>> SL Sandra Lovrencic >>> TS Todd Schneider >>> AW Andrea Westerinen >>> ZW Zena Wood >>> >>> regrets: < none > >>> >>> long-term unavailability: < none > >>> >>> == agenda == >>> >>> 0. adoption of agenda >>> >>> 1. update on FOIS and ISAO 2018 >>> a. dates >>> b. proposals for PC and general chairs >>> c. lecturers proposing lectures >>> >>> 2. wiki maintenance >>> a. term/definition updates >>> 1: formatting [FL] >>> 2: contents >>> b. textbook updates >>> c. other updates? >>> >>> 3. pub quiz @ wiki: status [ZW,MK] >>> a. quiz draft in Wordpress [ZW] >>> >>> 4. AOB >>> >>> 5. next meeting(s) >>> a. A break for August? >>> >>> == long-term agenda == >>> >>> A. ontology textbook effort [-> separate specific meetings] >>> * report at EduC meeting once in a while >>> >>> B. Ontology Competition [suspended] >>> >>> C. contact [ontolog-forum] hinting at definitions in the termlist, >>> reminding of connection to discussion of types of ontologies [1] >>> >>> >>> [1]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/PgKc7rIjGrU/discussion >>> >>> >>> == resources == >>> >>> * Education Committee Wiki >>> http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de >> Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ >> List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ >> Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ >> IAOA website: http://iaoa.org >> >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org From arwesterinen at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 05:29:27 2017 From: arwesterinen at gmail.com (Andrea Westerinen) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 23:29:27 -0400 Subject: [iaoa-education] IAOA Education Committee Meeting n.22 on Thu 2017.07.06: announcement In-Reply-To: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> References: <58c988b4-b72b-fd09-de68-8af3a41828c1@cs.uct.ac.za> Message-ID: My apologies, but I will be traveling on July 6th and will not be available for the call. Andrea Westerinen T: 425.891.8407 arwesterinen at gmail.com or andreaw at ninepts.com organizingknowledge.blogspot.com On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Maria Keet wrote: > Dear all, > > The next Education Committee meeting is scheduled as follows: > > --> Meeting n.22 Thu, July 06, 2017 > 05:30 PDT / 08:30 EDT / 13:30 BST / 14:30 CEST > 09:30 BRT / 14:30 SAST (cf. [1]) > > Skype: https://join.skype.com/a36OQeLjaIzd > Chat : http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/iaoa_edu_20170706 > > > Please find an agenda proposal below and suggest further items that you > would like to discuss. > > Best regards, > Maria > > > [1] local meeting date and time(s) > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=EduTC&iso=20170608T1430&p1=56&am=45 > > > > = 22st Meeting of the IAOA Techn. Comm. on Education - July 06, 2017 = > > == participants == > > expecting: > MK Maria Keet > FL Frank Loebe > SL Sandra Lovrencic > TS Todd Schneider > AW Andrea Westerinen > ZW Zena Wood > > regrets: < none > > > long-term unavailability: < none > > > == agenda == > > 0. adoption of agenda > > 1. update on FOIS and ISAO 2018 > a. dates > b. proposals for PC and general chairs > c. lecturers proposing lectures > > 2. wiki maintenance > a. term/definition updates > 1: formatting [FL] > 2: contents > b. textbook updates > c. other updates? > > 3. pub quiz @ wiki: status [ZW,MK] > a. quiz draft in Wordpress [ZW] > > 4. AOB > > 5. next meeting(s) > a. A break for August? > > == long-term agenda == > > A. ontology textbook effort [-> separate specific meetings] > * report at EduC meeting once in a while > > B. Ontology Competition [suspended] > > C. contact [ontolog-forum] hinting at definitions in the termlist, > reminding of connection to discussion of types of ontologies [1] > > > [1] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/PgKc7rIjGrU/discussion > > == resources == > > * Education Committee Wikihttp://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de Thu Jul 6 13:24:58 2017 From: frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de (Frank Loebe) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:24:58 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] proposal: new agenda item for today == FW: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: <79C19667-D24B-4629-811F-F15B10A9F975@topquadrant.com> References: <3c47945f-8712-a3e7-5655-e5c4d6139ed7@bestweb.net> <000c01d2f508$485fff40$d91ffdc0$@gmail.com> <707da67c-744f-37e5-df52-7bbeeabff692@bestweb.net> <8c91452a-caf7-0930-ca08-08193cf8642a@covad.net> <183DCA4B-39B3-4CB7-AFD4-A53C683FA364@ihmc.us> <79C19667-D24B-4629-811F-F15B10A9F975@topquadrant.com> Message-ID: <4542bf53-29a3-1825-3a99-559dffc48252@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Dear all, as we have a meeting today, I think we should discuss the current discussion on the term list at [ontolog-forum] [1] (see below) and a reaction to that, on the list and in the wiki, e.g. by a disclaimer. Best regards, Frank PS: offline for some hours [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ontolog-forum/mK7s90BjHDM/rDjgGsT6BgAJ ------ Original Message ------ From: David Price Sent: 2017.07.06 10:40 +0200 To: ontolog-forum Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology > FWIW I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list. I had a quick look at a few there are mostly really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse). > > Look at the definition of ?Ontology? for a prime example that will do nothing but add confusion: > > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them > > No consensus outside BFO would ever be reached on that (i.e. none of that text would survive review by anyone outside the BFO community). > > Best stop that exercise before any more time is wasted, and rather spend time on other fruitful activities. > > If for some reason people choose to continue, then every noun must have an adjective to specify context ? so ?BFO Ontology?, not ?Ontology?. No point in saying ?Ontology? and then list 10 completely conflicting definitions ? that adds nothing wrt wider consensus or clarity. That must follow through into the definitions too. For example, the "BFO Ontology" definition depends on very specific definitions of the terms it uses and I?m sure other of less-than-useful definitions would also appear for those terms in the list. How would anyone not deeply involved even start to parse such definitions without a clear context adjective used everywhere, all the time? > > I?m not 100% sure of the intended audience, but I would certainly *never* point an enterprise customer I was trying to convince of the value of a semantic approach to such a term list (even specified as I suggested) as it would provide nothing but ammunition for the naysayers. > > Cheers, > David > > UK +44 7788 561308 > US +1 336 283 0606 > > > > >> On 5 Jul 2017, at 22:32, Todd Schneider wrote: >> >> Pat, >> >> I can understand you comment about 'consensus on terminology', >> but in the context of the IAOA term list and its intent, I think another >> look may be in order (i.e., I may have failed to properly explain myself). >> >> The original intent of the list of terms was to collect those (natural language) >> terms deemed useful to understanding some of the background of the various >> disciplines that contribute to ontology and that appear in many source materials >> (relating to ontology) and their more common definitions. >> >> The assumption was that many terms do have different definitions and being able >> to provide these variations (and something of their context) would be helpful in >> promulgating a better understanding of ontology and its underpinnings. >> >> At present the IAOA term list is undergoing revision to weed out less relevant >> entries (e.g., BFO, Common Logic, OWL, etc.). >> >> The consensus I was (ambiguously) referring to was on the terms themselves >> and possibly the various definitions that should be included. Not consensus >> on a single definition (per term). >> >> Todd >> >> P.S. The best uses I've found from foundational ontologies (aka Upper ontologies) >> are the explanations, motivations, and reasoning behind the various decisions >> made in their creation. >> >> In application, those explanations have been more flexible and interoperable >> the ontologies themselves. >> >> >> On 7/5/17 4:33 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Todd Schneider wrote: >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> What I hope to gain from the IAOA meeting is better understanding >>>> on what a 'theory of ontology' (in the context of information systems) >>>> should encompass and what that may entail and possibly extract better >>>> design principles. >>> That sounds eminently reasonable and a laudable goal. But? >>> >>>> From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus >>>> on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list >>>> http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList). >>> ?this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic, in some cases to the point of seeming wilfully obscure, and are completely influenced and dominated by the OBO philosophical tradition, ignoring all other uses of words like ?class". To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated as a gospel by others. >>> >>> Pat Hayes >>> >>>> Also, the discussions should be entertaining. >>>> >>>> Todd >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/4/17 11:35 PM, John F Sowa wrote: >>>>> Dear Matthew and Todd, >>>>> >>>>>>> [JFS] My main criticism of the current draft is that it says >>>>>>> nothing about the complex issues of knowledge sharing and semantic >>>>>>> interoperability that have been analyzed and debated for the past >>>>>>> half century. >>>>>> [MW>] Indeed it does not, for the simple reason that is not the >>>>>> problem it is trying to solve. It is trying to do something much >>>>>> smaller, which is to set some standards for Top Level Ontologies >>>>>> that hopefully ontology developers will aspire to meet. >>>>> Unfortunately, that goal ignores the purpose of an ontology: >>>>> support interoperability among independently developed systems >>>>> -- *especially* the trillions of dollars of software that has >>>>> no explicit ontology of any kind. >>>>> >>>>> This goal raises fundamental questions about how to design a TLO >>>>> that has that level of flexibility. There are several options: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Edict a single TLO, which serves as the hub of a family of >>>>> spokes. Each TLO is the hub of a silo that is incompatible >>>>> with every competing silo -- and with the multi-trillions >>>>> of dollars of legacy software. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Develop a theory for designing ontologies in a systematic way >>>>> that facilitates interoperability. This is the microtheory >>>>> hypothesis of CYC and most large modern ontologies. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Ignore the top levels and focus on interoperability at the >>>>> mid levels and lower levels. This is the basis for using >>>>> WordNet and other lexical resources to align the data at the >>>>> level of ordinary language. This method has been moderately >>>>> successful for legacy systems from the punched-era of the >>>>> 1890s to nearly every system connected to the WWW today. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Develop mathematical methods for finding relationships among >>>>> independently developed systems. Examples include DOL and >>>>> other kinds of mathematical techniques. This method could >>>>> help #2 and #3 above. It might even relate some silos in #1. >>>>> >>>>> Option #1 (the hub & spoke model) is a strategy to promote >>>>> incompatible silos. I believe that this strategy is the primary >>>>> reason why practical developers ignore ontology. >>>>> >>>>>>> [JFS] Design Part 2 as a collection of microtheories from various >>>>>>> sources. The BFO top-level is small enough to be a microtheory. >>>>>>> Other microtheories may be added to Part 1 from any source. >>>>>> [MW>] Not part of the scope. The parts after Part 1 will be other >>>>>> TLOs that wish to be standardised as alternatives to BFO. Alternatively, >>>>>> for existing standard TLOs, they can claim conformance to the standard. >>>>> In short, the scope (copy below) implies that the standard will >>>>> consist of multiple competing TLOs, each of which is designed to >>>>> be the hub of a silo that is incompatible with every other silo. >>>>> >>>>> Todd >>>>>> Will you be attending the IAOA Summer Institute on Upper Ontologies, >>>>>> to be held in Toronto, this August? >>>>> No. Just the thought of listening to people claim that their silo >>>>> is better than anybody else's silo provokes retchophobia. I have >>>>> better things to do. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> An excerpt from the scope Part I: (Comment: silos by design.) >>>>> >>>>> This International Standard focuses on ontologies to be used as >>>>> resources designed to support the interchange of information among >>>>> heterogeneous computer systems. It specifies a hub-and-spokes >>>>> architecture for ontology development and sets forth the requirements >>>>> an ontology shall satisfy if it is serve as hub in such an architecture. >>>>> >>>>> The following are within the scope of this International Standard: >>>>> >>>>> ? Specification of how ontologies used for data retrieval, integration >>>>> and analysis can be combined into modular suites of mutually consistent >>>>> and non-redundant ontologies. >>>>> >>>>> ? Specification of the hub-and-spokes structure of such ontology suites. >>>>> >>>>> ? Specification of the role of definitions in a hub-and-spokes ontology >>>>> architecture. >>>>> >>>>> ? Specification of the requirements for an ontology to serve as hub in >>>>> such a structure. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors. >>>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors. >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > From sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr Sat Jul 8 23:03:08 2017 From: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr (=?UTF-8?B?U2FuZHJhIExvdnJlbsSNacSH?=) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 23:03:08 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, below are new suggestions from ontolog forum. Regards, Sandra FOI signature ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Faculty of organization and informatics *Assoc. Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.* *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341 e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400 From: John F Sowa Reply-To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P, Todd > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList . That goal is not bad. But those of us who have looked at that list have already reached a consensus: Kill it before it multiplies. Pat > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic... > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated > as a gospel by others. Chris > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work > to make it usable. David > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)... > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion: > > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and > certain relations between them That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen. If you type "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better: > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. > > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that > shows their properties and the relations between them. > > Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created > automatically from large datasets" The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be good: > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of > being. Ontology deals with abstract entities. > > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things > that have existence. The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities" instead of just "abstract entities". However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights. If we copy too many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued. Fortunately, the _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright. And not by accident, the definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce: > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances > and accidents. For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg. For other words, see http://www.global-language.com/century/ and ask for the jpg. That returns the full page that includes the definition. Recommendation: For each term in the IOAO list, cite several definitions and their sources. To provide a broader range of options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and any others that may be available. Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions. A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce some good definitions. I'll volunteer to do the following: 1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list. 2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2 ontology working group: http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm That was a good group. See http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/ 3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_ to that list. Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them were written by Peirce. 4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about which definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete. John -- All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo-signature-01.gif Type: image/gif Size: 843 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ontology.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 102574 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tjschneider at covad.net Sun Jul 9 21:20:44 2017 From: tjschneider at covad.net (Todd Schneider) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:20:44 -0400 Subject: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5f38f7ad-5857-69f0-485f-993d6eba4903@covad.net> Sandra, Thank you for forwarding John's post. I'm not sure everyone on the committee is a member of the forum. One point that I've failed to get across is the intent of the list of terms: It was meant only to cover the intersection of the different disciplines that contribute to the current field of ontology. Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the 'current ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. Though both have similar intent, their domains and scope are different. Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? Todd On 7/8/17 5:03 PM, Sandra Lovren?i? wrote: > > Dear all, > > below are new suggestions from ontolog forum. > > Regards, > > Sandra > > FOI signature > ** > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Faculty of organization and informatics *Assoc. > Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.* > *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics > *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia > tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341 > e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr > http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology > Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400 > From: John F Sowa > Reply-To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com > To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com > > > > Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P, > > Todd > > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus > > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list > >http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList . > > That goal is not bad. But those of us who have looked at that list > have already reached a consensus: Kill it before it multiplies. > > Pat > > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize > > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic... > > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless > > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated > > as a gospel by others. > > Chris > > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work > > to make it usable. > > David > > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly > > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)... > > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion: > > > > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising > > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended > > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and > > certain relations between them > > That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen. If you type > "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better: > > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. > > > > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that > > shows their properties and the relations between them. > > > > Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created > > automatically from large datasets" > > The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be good: > > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of > > being. Ontology deals with abstract entities. > > > > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things > > that have existence. > > The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities" > instead of just "abstract entities". > > However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights. If we copy too > many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued. Fortunately, the > _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright. And not by accident, the > definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce: > > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates > > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances > > and accidents. > > For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and > Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg. > > For other words, seehttp://www.global-language.com/century/ and ask > for the jpg. That returns the full page that includes the definition. > > Recommendation: For each term in the IOAO list, cite several > definitions and their sources. To provide a broader range of > options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and > any others that may be available. > > Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or > Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions. > A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce > some good definitions. > > I'll volunteer to do the following: > > 1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the > current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list. > > 2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2 > ontology working group:http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm > That was a good group. Seehttp://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/ > > 3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_ > to that list. Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them > were written by Peirce. > > 4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so > that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about which > definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete. > > John > > -- > All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 843 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de Mon Jul 10 03:56:17 2017 From: frank.loebe at informatik.uni-leipzig.de (Frank Loebe) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 03:56:17 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] Updates related to the term list discussion at [ontolog-forum] == RE: Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: <5f38f7ad-5857-69f0-485f-993d6eba4903@covad.net> References: <5f38f7ad-5857-69f0-485f-993d6eba4903@covad.net> Message-ID: <7cef2ae6-43db-be5a-f7a9-8db65229e394@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Hi Sandra, Todd and all, just briefly now: I also noted John Sowa's message on Sat and felt the need/intent to respond to that, but couldn't get started on that before earlier today. What I did so far is to add a bit more of a disclaimer to the term list main page [1] and ended up starting [2] (though a bit more could be said there). I'd further plan to update the "Ontology" term page with more variants (e.g., from Maria's entry or a paper by Guarino, which discusses a number of definitions; also trying formatting based on the most recent discussions), to give an example of "where to go". Then I'd plan to point John Sowa to those updates and invite him to make his intended contributions. --> @Todd: Sorry for "overriding" your very recent edits on [1]. I tried to maintain the sense, but shorter on [1], and moved a bit over to [2]. --> @all: I'd be interested in whether "my" goal specifications on [2] match your intentions (sufficiently), before I'd post the page at [ontolog-forum]. > [TS] > It was meant only to cover the intersection of the different > disciplines that contribute to the current field of ontology. E.g., here, I wonder whether it is still the case to focus on that intersection only (which I believe was true w.r.t. initial motivations). I think we had also discussed the list as a pre-stage to a glossary for the intended textbook, which would allow for including terms from "pure" applied ontology. In any case, we could start/continue focusing on the "intersection terms" first. > [TS] > Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the > 'current ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. > Though both have similar intent, their domains and scope are > different. > > Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? It's not fully clear to me where you would like to clarify the difference? In a response message or in the wiki itself? Perhaps a statement could be added on [2] and then pointed to in a response. Any other comments on the updates are welcome. I could imagine that the disclaimer of the early stage of development may seem counterproductive (w.r.t gaining users/interested parties). OTOH, I hope it clarifies the situation and avoids misunderstandings such as assuming the list to be a comprehensive and consented result already, instead of being just a beginning (at the moment). Thanks and best regards, Frank [1] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList [2] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList-About ------ Original Message ------ From: Todd Schneider Sent: 2017.07.09 21:20 +0200 To: IAOA Education Committee Subject: Re: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology > Sandra, > > Thank you for forwarding John's post. I'm not sure everyone on the committee > is a member of the forum. > > One point that I've failed to get across is the intent of the list of > terms: It was > meant only to cover the intersection of the different disciplines that > contribute > to the current field of ontology. > > Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the > 'current > ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. Though both > have > similar intent, their domains and scope are different. > > Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? > > Todd > > On 7/8/17 5:03 PM, Sandra Lovren?i? wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> below are new suggestions from ontolog forum. >> >> Regards, >> >> Sandra >> >> FOI signature >> ** >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Faculty of organization and informatics *Assoc. >> Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.* >> *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics >> *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia >> tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341 >> e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr >> http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology >> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400 >> From: John F Sowa >> Reply-To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >> To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P, >> >> Todd >> > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus >> > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list >> > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList . >> >> That goal is not bad. But those of us who have looked at that list >> have already reached a consensus: Kill it before it multiplies. >> >> Pat >> > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize >> > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic... >> > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless >> > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated >> > as a gospel by others. >> >> Chris >> > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work >> > to make it usable. >> >> David >> > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly >> > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)... >> > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion: >> > >> > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising >> > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended >> > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and >> > certain relations between them >> >> That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen. If you type >> "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better: >> > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. >> > >> > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that >> > shows their properties and the relations between them. >> > >> > Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created >> > automatically from large datasets" >> >> The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be good: >> > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of >> > being. Ontology deals with abstract entities. >> > >> > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things >> > that have existence. >> >> The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities" >> instead of just "abstract entities". >> >> However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights. If we copy too >> many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued. Fortunately, the >> _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright. And not by accident, the >> definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce: >> > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates >> > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances >> > and accidents. >> >> For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and >> Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg. >> >> For other words, seehttp://www.global-language.com/century/ and ask >> for the jpg. That returns the full page that includes the definition. >> >> Recommendation: For each term in the IOAO list, cite several >> definitions and their sources. To provide a broader range of >> options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and >> any others that may be available. >> >> Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or >> Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions. >> A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce >> some good definitions. >> >> I'll volunteer to do the following: >> >> 1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the >> current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list. >> >> 2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2 >> ontology working group:http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm >> That was a good group. Seehttp://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/ >> >> 3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_ >> to that list. Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them >> were written by Peirce. >> >> 4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so >> that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about which >> definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete. >> >> John From tjschneider at covad.net Mon Jul 10 17:24:44 2017 From: tjschneider at covad.net (Todd Schneider) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:24:44 -0400 Subject: [iaoa-education] Updates related to the term list discussion at [ontolog-forum] == RE: Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: <7cef2ae6-43db-be5a-f7a9-8db65229e394@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> References: <5f38f7ad-5857-69f0-485f-993d6eba4903@covad.net> <7cef2ae6-43db-be5a-f7a9-8db65229e394@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Message-ID: <74f27970-dbd7-f48e-d506-afe4f2c9f058@covad.net> Frank, Feel free to edit away. As to the 'scope of coverage', I've reconsidered that position. I agree the list should cover more and provide a source of commonality. Which brings me to another point. At least one response to the Forum suggested such a list is a waste of time. I've thought this over and my response, which I'll post later today, is that such a view is contrary to the nature of the current understanding of ontologies as engineered artifacts. Most, if not all, engineering disciplines come to some consensus on the terms used (for the practice of their discipline) and their (expected) interpretations. The lack of such consensus bodes poorly for a larger acceptance and use. Finally, we need to better distinguish the current state of ontology from its historical roots. Thoughts? Todd +1.703.655.8826 (mobile) On 7/9/17 9:56 PM, Frank Loebe wrote: > Hi Sandra, Todd and all, > > just briefly now: I also noted John Sowa's message on Sat and felt the > need/intent to respond to that, but couldn't get started on that > before earlier today. What I did so far is to add a bit more of a > disclaimer to the term list main page [1] and ended up starting [2] > (though a bit more could be said there). I'd further plan to update > the "Ontology" term page with more variants (e.g., from Maria's entry > or a paper by Guarino, which discusses a number of definitions; also > trying formatting based on the most recent discussions), to give an > example of "where to go". Then I'd plan to point John Sowa to those > updates and invite him to make his intended contributions. > > --> @Todd: > Sorry for "overriding" your very recent edits on [1]. I tried > to maintain the sense, but shorter on [1], and moved a bit over > to [2]. > > --> @all: > I'd be interested in whether "my" goal specifications on [2] > match your intentions (sufficiently), before I'd post the page at > [ontolog-forum]. > > > > [TS] > > It was meant only to cover the intersection of the different > > disciplines that contribute to the current field of ontology. > > E.g., here, I wonder whether it is still the case to focus on that > intersection only (which I believe was true w.r.t. initial > motivations). I think we had also discussed the list as a pre-stage to > a glossary for the intended textbook, which would allow for including > terms from "pure" applied ontology. In any case, we could > start/continue focusing on the "intersection terms" first. > > > > [TS] > > Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the > > 'current ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. > > Though both have similar intent, their domains and scope are > > different. > > > > Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? > > It's not fully clear to me where you would like to clarify the > difference? In a response message or in the wiki itself? Perhaps a > statement could be added on [2] and then pointed to in a response. > > > Any other comments on the updates are welcome. I could imagine that > the disclaimer of the early stage of development may seem > counterproductive (w.r.t gaining users/interested parties). OTOH, I > hope it clarifies the situation and avoids misunderstandings such as > assuming the list to be a comprehensive and consented result already, > instead of being just a beginning (at the moment). > > Thanks and best regards, > Frank > > > [1] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList > > [2] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList-About > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: Todd Schneider > Sent: 2017.07.09 21:20 +0200 > To: IAOA Education Committee > Subject: Re: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO > standard for ontology > >> Sandra, >> >> Thank you for forwarding John's post. I'm not sure everyone on the >> committee >> is a member of the forum. >> >> One point that I've failed to get across is the intent of the list of >> terms: It was >> meant only to cover the intersection of the different disciplines >> that contribute >> to the current field of ontology. >> >> Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of >> the 'current >> ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. Though >> both have >> similar intent, their domains and scope are different. >> >> Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? >> >> Todd >> >> On 7/8/17 5:03 PM, Sandra Lovren?i? wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> below are new suggestions from ontolog forum. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sandra >>> >>> FOI signature >>> ** >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Faculty of organization and informatics *Assoc. >>> Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.* >>> *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics >>> *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia >>> tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341 >>> e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr >>> http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology >>> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400 >>> From: John F Sowa >>> Reply-To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >>> To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P, >>> >>> Todd >>> > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus >>> > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list >>> > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList . >>> >>> That goal is not bad. But those of us who have looked at that list >>> have already reached a consensus: Kill it before it multiplies. >>> >>> Pat >>> > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize >>> > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic... >>> > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless >>> > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated >>> > as a gospel by others. >>> >>> Chris >>> > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work >>> > to make it usable. >>> >>> David >>> > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly >>> > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)... >>> > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion: >>> > > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising >>> > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended >>> > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and >>> > certain relations between them >>> >>> That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen. If you type >>> "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better: >>> > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. >>> > > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain >>> that >>> > shows their properties and the relations between them. >>> > > Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created >>> > automatically from large datasets" >>> >>> The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be >>> good: >>> > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of >>> > being. Ontology deals with abstract entities. >>> > > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of >>> things >>> > that have existence. >>> >>> The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities" >>> instead of just "abstract entities". >>> >>> However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights. If we copy too >>> many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued. Fortunately, the >>> _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright. And not by accident, the >>> definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce: >>> > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates >>> > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances >>> > and accidents. >>> >>> For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and >>> Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg. >>> >>> For other words, seehttp://www.global-language.com/century/ and ask >>> for the jpg. That returns the full page that includes the definition. >>> >>> Recommendation: For each term in the IOAO list, cite several >>> definitions and their sources. To provide a broader range of >>> options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and >>> any others that may be available. >>> >>> Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or >>> Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions. >>> A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce >>> some good definitions. >>> >>> I'll volunteer to do the following: >>> >>> 1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the >>> current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list. >>> >>> 2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2 >>> ontology working group:http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm >>> That was a good group. Seehttp://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/ >>> >>> 3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_ >>> to that list. Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them >>> were written by Peirce. >>> >>> 4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so >>> that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about >>> which >>> definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete. >>> >>> John > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org > > From mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za Mon Jul 10 21:22:09 2017 From: mkeet at cs.uct.ac.za (Maria Keet) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:22:09 +0200 Subject: [iaoa-education] Updates related to the term list discussion at [ontolog-forum] == RE: Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology In-Reply-To: <7cef2ae6-43db-be5a-f7a9-8db65229e394@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> References: <5f38f7ad-5857-69f0-485f-993d6eba4903@covad.net> <7cef2ae6-43db-be5a-f7a9-8db65229e394@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Message-ID: <26DC9452-3243-471F-9632-EDD86B3FC118@cs.uct.ac.za> Hi all, I'm having some data connection issues with my laptop, but did make a draft disclaimer, attached. Does that sound reasonable to take away the concerns raised? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image1.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 36475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Regards, Maria Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Jul 2017, at 03:56, Frank Loebe wrote: > > Hi Sandra, Todd and all, > > just briefly now: I also noted John Sowa's message on Sat and felt the need/intent to respond to that, but couldn't get started on that before earlier today. What I did so far is to add a bit more of a disclaimer to the term list main page [1] and ended up starting [2] (though a bit more could be said there). I'd further plan to update the "Ontology" term page with more variants (e.g., from Maria's entry or a paper by Guarino, which discusses a number of definitions; also trying formatting based on the most recent discussions), to give an example of "where to go". Then I'd plan to point John Sowa to those updates and invite him to make his intended contributions. > > --> @Todd: > Sorry for "overriding" your very recent edits on [1]. I tried > to maintain the sense, but shorter on [1], and moved a bit over > to [2]. > > --> @all: > I'd be interested in whether "my" goal specifications on [2] > match your intentions (sufficiently), before I'd post the page at > [ontolog-forum]. > > > > [TS] > > It was meant only to cover the intersection of the different > > disciplines that contribute to the current field of ontology. > > E.g., here, I wonder whether it is still the case to focus on that intersection only (which I believe was true w.r.t. initial motivations). I think we had also discussed the list as a pre-stage to a glossary for the intended textbook, which would allow for including terms from "pure" applied ontology. In any case, we could start/continue focusing on the "intersection terms" first. > > > > [TS] > > Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the > > 'current ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. > > Though both have similar intent, their domains and scope are > > different. > > > > Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? > > It's not fully clear to me where you would like to clarify the difference? In a response message or in the wiki itself? Perhaps a statement could be added on [2] and then pointed to in a response. > > > Any other comments on the updates are welcome. I could imagine that the disclaimer of the early stage of development may seem counterproductive (w.r.t gaining users/interested parties). OTOH, I hope it clarifies the situation and avoids misunderstandings such as assuming the list to be a comprehensive and consented result already, instead of being just a beginning (at the moment). > > Thanks and best regards, > Frank > > > [1] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList > > [2] http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList-About > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: Todd Schneider > Sent: 2017.07.09 21:20 +0200 > To: IAOA Education Committee > Subject: Re: [iaoa-education] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology > >> Sandra, >> Thank you for forwarding John's post. I'm not sure everyone on the committee >> is a member of the forum. >> One point that I've failed to get across is the intent of the list of terms: It was >> meant only to cover the intersection of the different disciplines that contribute >> to the current field of ontology. >> Another point made clear in John's response was the distinction of the 'current >> ontology' from its historical past 'metaphysical ontology'. Though both have >> similar intent, their domains and scope are different. >> Any suggestions on how to clarify this difference better? >> Todd >>> On 7/8/17 5:03 PM, Sandra Lovren?i? wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> below are new suggestions from ontolog forum. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sandra >>> >>> FOI signature >>> ** >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Faculty of organization and informatics *Assoc. Prof. Sandra Lovren?i?, Ph.D.* >>> *University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics >>> *Pavlinska 2, HR-42000 Vara?din, Croatia >>> tel: +385 42 390 851; fax: +385 42 213 413; mob: +385 98 243 341 >>> e-mail: sandra.lovrencic at foi.hr >>> http://www.foi.unizg.hr/eng/staff/sandra.lovrencic >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposed ISO standard for ontology >>> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:12:30 -0400 >>> From: John F Sowa >>> Reply-To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >>> To: ontolog-forum at googlegroups.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Todd, Pat H, David P, and Chris P, >>> >>> Todd >>> > From a practical perspective l'll be pushing for consensus >>> > on common terminology (i.e., see the IAOA terminology list >>> > http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/pmwiki.php?n=IAOAEdu.TermList . >>> >>> That goal is not bad. But those of us who have looked at that list >>> have already reached a consensus: Kill it before it multiplies. >>> >>> Pat >>> > this is a disaster. Both the selection of terminology to standardize >>> > and the definitions offered are completely idiosyncratic... >>> > To standardize on these would be simply to create another useless >>> > silo which will be ignored by some and enthusiastically treated >>> > as a gospel by others. >>> >>> Chris >>> > I agree with David and Pat - this really needs quite a lot of work >>> > to make it usable. >>> >>> David >>> > I agree 100% with Pat wrt the terms list... a few there are mostly >>> > really terrible (i.e. they would make the current situation worse)... >>> > the definition of ?Ontology?... will do nothing but add confusion: >>> > > Ontology: An ONTOLOGY is a representational artifact, comprising >>> > a taxonomy as proper part, whose representational units are intended >>> > to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and >>> > certain relations between them >>> >>> That is the worst definition of ontology I have ever seen. If you type >>> "define ontology" to Google, the first thing you get is much better: >>> > 1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. >>> > > 2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that >>> > shows their properties and the relations between them. >>> > > Example: "what's new about our ontology is that it is created >>> > automatically from large datasets" >>> >>> The Merriam-Webster definition, with one correction, would also be good: >>> > 1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of >>> > being. Ontology deals with abstract entities. >>> > > 2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things >>> > that have existence. >>> >>> The obvious correction is to say "both physical and abstract entities" >>> instead of just "abstract entities". >>> >>> However, most dictionaries protect their copyrights. If we copy too >>> many definitions from them, IOAO could be sued. Fortunately, the >>> _Century Dictionary_ is out of copyright. And not by accident, the >>> definition of 'ontology' was written by Charles Sanders Peirce: >>> > The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates >>> > the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances >>> > and accidents. >>> >>> For Peirce's full definition and quotations by Watts, Hegel, and >>> Hamilton, see the attached file, ontology.jpg. >>> >>> For other words, seehttp://www.global-language.com/century/ and ask >>> for the jpg. That returns the full page that includes the definition. >>> >>> Recommendation: For each term in the IOAO list, cite several >>> definitions and their sources. To provide a broader range of >>> options, include the version from the Century Dictionary and >>> any others that may be available. >>> >>> Then for each term, provide a comment area for members of IOAO or >>> Ontolog to state their suggestions, preferences, and revisions. >>> A few rounds of revisions, commentary, and voting should produce >>> some good definitions. >>> >>> I'll volunteer to do the following: >>> >>> 1. Produce a list of definitions that can be posted alongside the >>> current crop that is now polluting the IOAO list. >>> >>> 2. I'll start with a glossary developed in 1997 by the NCITS T2 >>> ontology working group:http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm >>> That was a good group. Seehttp://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/ >>> >>> 3. And I'll also add any definitions from the _Century Dictionary_ >>> to that list. Like the definition for 'ontology', many of them >>> were written by Peirce. >>> >>> 4. Then it would be useful if somebody would add a "blog" option so >>> that members of Ontolog and IAOA could make suggestions about which >>> definitions to extend/merge/revise/delete. >>> >>> John > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:iaoa-education at ovgu.de > Msg Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-education/ > List Info: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-education/ > Comm. Wiki: http://iaoaedu.cs.uct.ac.za/ > IAOA website: http://iaoa.org From Z.Wood at greenwich.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 19:27:56 2017 From: Z.Wood at greenwich.ac.uk (Zena Wood) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:27:56 +0000 Subject: [iaoa-education] Minutes from IAOA-EC Meeting n.173 Message-ID: <3E1BE7ED-5183-4DEC-BECF-A764842CED99@greenwich.ac.uk> Dear all, I apologise for the delay in sending this. Please find attached minutes from our last meeting. Regards, Zena University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee, registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office: Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TranscriptEduTCMeeting173.rtf Type: text/rtf Size: 8919 bytes Desc: TranscriptEduTCMeeting173.rtf URL: