- From: Mandana <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:46:34 -0800
- To: "'Gary Berg-Cross'" <gbergcross@gmail.com>, "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>
- Cc: "'Hillman Mitchell'" <HMitchell@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, <rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com>, "'public-xg-eiif'" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Gary, This is the problem we faced at the beginning. Figure 1 is the result of our brainstorming session and without a framework, there are various ways to classify the concepts. We were initially looking for proper approaches to do so. The phased framework was actually one approach to it. Using upper ontologies could be another one (top-down), or like the one you suggested as a bottom-up approach. We chatted a bit about it in the teleconference call ( I was hoping we could discuss it with you too). The discussion was that for now we need to be more specific about the approaches we are proposing than harmonizing the concepts, although I agree with you that eventually we need to harmonize the concepts. We have gathered some existing approaches on the wiki and we probably need to relate what we propose to them as well ( to indicate that the approaches are based on the problems or gaps that we identified etc...). Mandana ( I started an email chain with the members only who had concerns/suggestions about the disconnection of the figures/models in the draft to avoid sending unwanted emails to others. I thought to return the discussions back to the group now that Manfred and others have volunteered to review the draft as well). -----Original Message----- From: Gary Berg-Cross [mailto:gbergcross@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:08 PM To: Renato Iannella Cc: Mandana Sotoodeh; Hillman Mitchell; rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com Subject: Further comments on Figure 1, UML model sand phased framework Renato suggested: > We can "drop" Figure 1 or not call it a model ? My 2 cents is that I think that we can do what Figure 1 tries to do by discussing the subject areas that make up the domain in a relatively informal way. This gives us some freedom to introduce the domain and some core concepts. We can use the UML models to be more formal about the subjects. If we get around to the taxonomies and ontologies we can be more formal still. Gary On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au> wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2009, at 16:14, Gary Berg-Cross wrote: > >> Figure 1 is the one that I have the most difficulty >> with, because it's "semantics" is rather scattered and informal. We >> should have a much better handle on the sub-types of the major >> concepts (WHO, WHAT, WHERE, GOVERNANCE?). > > > We can "drop" Figure 1 or not call it a model ? > > Cheers... Renato Iannella > NICTA > > > -- Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D. gbergcross@gmail.com http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross SOCoP Executive Secretary Principal, EM&I Semantic Technology Potomac, MD 301-762-5441
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 01:47:21 UTC