Re: eiif and ontology proper

Paola and all,
if you want to start with DOLCE, I'd suggest using the core (lite) version 
that you can fin here: http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite.owl

And yes, I've some (limited) time to dedicate to this activity on WORKPAD 
(www.workpad-proj.eu) funds, so basically if you can send me (or point me 
to) the UML sources (XMI) of the models you've developed so far I can try 
aligning the current conceptualization with this top level and see if it 
make sense. We could also have DOLCE authors on board if needed.

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





paola.dimaio@gmail.com 
Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
21/11/2008 12.59

To
public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
cc

Subject
eiif and ontology proper






Gary, and all

can you you please repeat the question that you had in commenting the 
paragraph 'toward common ontology'?

When I first joined this group, the word ontology itself was avoided, to 
avoid entering in the realm of the ' too abstract and complicated' to be 
useful. Obviously members of this incubator have become more comfortable 
using the term since we started and, inevitably now we have to become 
semantically more precise.

So, if we have to talk about ontology in our draft framework document, 
this would be a good time to start
doing so properly.

At the moment what we have is a schema, which in  itself it would be great 
to have, because ultimately, in  a functinal sense,  that's what we need 
to make the information flow a bit more coherent , functional and 
efficient. 

To make sure that our schema is compatible with the grand scheme of 
things, and universals and primitives, may require some additional 
refinement of our conceptual model. This will result in our schema to be 
more versatile robust and consistent and much more useful in time. 

Please share your thoughts with us, and let's ponder what choices we have 
to confront to move our work up to the metaphysical ladder (hehe, joking)

Guido Vetere who has recently joined this group said that he is going to 
send some considerations and suggestions on how to model our schema to 
comply with DOLCE,

http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/DOLCE2.1-FOL.pdf

which I very much look forward to seeing his contribution


Gary, which foundational ontology have you worked with before? What would 
be your suggestions to
align our work with top level categories of sorts? 

I think it is a challenge for bottom up schemas (what we are doing now) to 
comply with foundational requirements,
as well as it is a chellenge for foundational ontologies to be 
adopted/applied in bottom up schemas creation

So  starting thinking in terms of ontology proper is an interesting and 
important exercise that we cannot longer postpone
and hopefully we'll learn what we need to learn along the way


pdm







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



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)