Re: EIIF ontologies vs dolce's upper level

Guido
thanks a lot for your effort
that's not too bad news, I guess :-)

and very helpful, at least to have a sense of what we are doing in terms
soundness of ontological foundations, and spot areas for improvement

please share any further recommendation on how to fix resources, and any
other recommendation

resources is actually a very large mixed bag, cause absolutely everything is
in there

 the key is probably to identify essential attributes for the class
definition, and then work the way down


resource

physical
material vs people

metadata
other informaiton >>>spatial (location of the resource)
                            >>>>date of expiry
                           >>>>>how to operate


best
PDM


On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
> eventually I could merge a sketchy version of DOLCE upper ontology with the
> EIIF uml model (package 7) and this is the result. You will find attached
> the basic DOLCE upper level (actually is a DOLCE Lite plus some concept from
> other modules - see http://wiki.loa-cnr.it/index.php/LoaWiki:Ontologies).
> If you need xmi\uml sources just ask me.
>
> Comments. Except 'Resource', all the EIIF classes I've examined can be
> coarsely accommodated under DOLCE's top level concepts. As for persons and
> their roles, I opted for a multiplicative approach - but this is not
> crucial.
>
> The major attention point is about places, positioning and their
> descriptions. Here is where, in my opinion, a foundational layer like DOLCE
> can help a lot. Basically, DOLCE follows classic ontology by setting a
> distinction among objects (endurants), their positions (spatial qualities)
> and the space-time regions they refer to. Also, it adopts the distinction
> concrete vs. abstract as the difference between things with (resp. w\out)
> physical qualities. Now, in my view, an 'address' is an abstract reference
> to the spatial quality of a static thing, not to be confused with any space
> region, since an address can change without any variation of the spatial
> qualities it refers to.
>
> In general, I think that there are many details of EIIF models that can be
> discussed \ improved in the light of basic ontological distinctions, but I
> didn't find anything dramatically wrong. As for 'Resource' it seems to be
> intended as an heap of 'instruments' for a class of actions related to
> emergency operations (i.e. tools) but also human resources, i.e.
> 'participants' to these actions. I think that a better modeling is needed
> here.
>
> Hope that you find it useful.
>
>
>
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)




-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
MFU.ac.th
*********************************************