Ontology Summit 2007: Communiqué Comments & Suggestions

A few suggestions were received to re-open the dialog to further refine this communique and come up with a "next version" of the document. After due discussion it was decided that since this communique serves well to represent a snapshot position of the summit conveners, we will just leave it at version 1.0 (after correcting typos and formatting enhancement where applicable) for now. We would, however, invite the community to post their comments and further suggestions, which we can use as a reference for future work.

---

Please post your comments and suggestions to the OntologySummit2007_Communique v1.0 document below: (kindly identify yourself and date-stamp your post)

• Suggested edits from DeborahMacPherson / 2007.04.25-22:07 EDT
  • the version of the communique the above edits were referring to

• Input from Michael Uschold / 2007.04.25-22:56 PDT

• On "endorsement" of the Communique - Jon Bosak / 2007.05.03-6:48 PDT
  • Jon Bosak: "I'm not seeing anything here to endorse. I can't endorse the

findings, because I wasn't there; and I can't endorse a proposal for action, because there doesn't seem to be one. In other words, this application of "endorse" seems to constitute a category error.  :-)"

• • • Peter P. Yim: "Jon, we are looking for endorsement to the 'inclusive' spirit of the Summit, more than anything else, considering how fragmented (reads: "don't talk to one another") different constituencies that do

'ontology' or 'ontology-like' work were."

• Editing comments and alignment of the Communique and the diagram - Nancy Wiegand / 2007.04.29-15:05 CDT
  • There are 2 edits needed on p. 2. In the first sentence of the first

paragraph after The Framework Dimensions title, "so as encourage" should be "so as to encourage" or just "to encourage".

• • • response: corrected, using "to encourage" (--PeterYim / 2007.04.30-10:19 PDT)
  • In the 3rd paragraph under that heading, "less the expressiveness"

should be "less than the expressiveness".

• • • response: corrected (--PeterYim / 2007.04.30-10:19 PDT)
  • Also, the diagram does not have "prescriptive" on it even though it

is listed in the text as one of the six major dimensions. Actually, the 6 main dimensions are not obvious from the diagram, in any case. That is, they are not distinguishable from other ovals.

• • But, I endorse the content and appreciate people's work to formulate

this. (-- Nancy Wiegand / 2007.04.29-15:05 CDT)