RE: Any reason for ontology reuse?

I totally agree with John. But there should be two driving forces, one financial and the other general interest. Both are served by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

http://www,iso.org
http://metadata-stds.org
http://jtc1sc32.org

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 is the respected organization we should be focusing our attention on.

And by virtue of their working procedures, the experts working on standards are selected by peers, based on technical recommendations, and proven expertise in their respective fields, so there is and will be no question about their production.

I strongly suggest doing a conference with participation of the W3C, ISO and industry associations under the auspices of the European Union as most suitable host for now to address Standardization in Data Management and Interchange.

Key note speakers to be selected from W3C, ISO, industry and some research institutes.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.


--- On Sun, 12/5/10, John Flynn <jflynn@bbn.com> wrote:

From: John Flynn <jflynn@bbn.com>
Subject: RE: Any reason for ontology reuse?
To: public-lod@w3.org, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: "'John Flynn'" <jflynn@bbn.com>
Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 3:45 PM

It is possible that many domain ontologies will emerge as quasi-standards
over time. This process would be similar to what has happened in other
communities. For example, in the human resources domain the HR-XML
Consortium (1) has been developing and refining HR-related XML schema (2)
for many years. Some other large company/organization might feel the
necessity and be willing to invest the resources into developing their own
different HR XML schema, but many companies would feel confident in using
the HR-XML "standard" that has been developed by the HR-XML Consortium. In
the Semantic Web world if, for example, the Association of International
Automobile Manufactures decided to invest in developing an OWL ontology for
the automotive domain, it would make sense for many to reuse that domain
ontology rather than developing one of their own or using one developed by
some less verifiable source. Some such "standards" are already emerging, but
it will take time for ontologies across many domains to emerge and they will
be developed only when the communities of interest feel it is in their
financial interest to do so. In the meanwhile the development and vetting by
the community of small ontologies that describe common concepts would
provide templates that others could confidently reuse. It would be useful if
some respected organization might establish formal vetting procedures and
collect these vetted ontologies and place them on a web site for all to
reuse. 


(1) http://www.hr-xml.org/hr-xml/wms/hr-xml-1-org/index.php?language=2 
(2)
http://www.hr-xml.org/hr-xml/wms/hr-xml-1-org/index.php?id={E00DA03B685A0DD1
8FB6A08AF0923DE0|139|2}