Re: eiif and ontology proper

Thanks a lot Guido
much more reasonable!

It will be very interesting to work out what we have in terms of DOLCE
classes
look forward
PDM


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Paola,
> this is the gif of the UML class diagram of a DOLCE-Lite derivative top
> level that we are using in another project. I use eclipse uml tools for
> working with this.
>
>
>
> 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 15.26
>   To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT  cc
> public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
>  Subject
> Re: eiif and ontology proper
>
>
>
>
> Guido thanks for the offer
>
> we really need to move this in that direction, dolce or other, as soon as
> we are comfortable that
> the schema that we have in hand is what we consider a good enough working
> draft
> I guess
>
> btw - would you have a visualization of the owl schema below, something
> that looks more like a diagram? I wonder if I should try out the tabulator
> extension of firefox to do it . or what browser can I point to the url below
> to see a visualisation?
> (lost in the rdf technology maze)
>
>
> : *http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite.owl*<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* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 21/11/2008 12.59
>
>   To
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <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*<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
>