Ontolog Forum
OntologySummit2007: OntologySummit2007_Survey individual responses
OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response input from DanGillman
Please make sure you refer to the Ontology Summit 2007 & OntologySummit2007_Survey pages for the full context of the input.
Question 1 Respondant Info
Name: Dan Gillman
Question 2 Affiliated - I am affiliated with the following constituencies/communities (please check all that apply)
[ ] Formal ontology communities [ ] Semantic Web communities [ ] Linguistic communities [ ] Concept Map community [ ] Topic Map community [ ] [[SEARCH]] communities [ ] Web 2.0 communities [ ] Thesauri community [ ] Taxonomy communities [X] Metadata communities [ ] XML communities [ ] Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities [ ] System Architecture communities [ ] Biomedical communities [X] Standards Development communities [ ] Other (please specify): (Not Answered)
Question 2a Representing - I represent the perspective of the following constituency/community (please pick one; if you want to provide input from more than one perspective, please return a separate form):
[ ] 1. Formal ontology communities [ ] 2. Semantic Web communities [ ] 3. Linguistic communities [ ] 4. Concept Map community [ ] 5. Topic Map community [ ] 6. [[SEARCH]] communities [ ] 7. Web 2.0 communities [ ] 8. Thesauri community [ ] 9. Taxonomy communities [ ] 10. Metadata communities [ ] 11. XML communities [ ] 12. Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities [ ] 13. System Architecture communities [ ] 14. Biomedical communities [X] 15. Standards Development communities [ ] 16. Other (please specify): (Not Answered)
Question 2b Specific Community
or sub-community I am affiliated with: ISO/IEC 11179
Question 2c Expertise Self Assessment - With respect to the perspective you are representing and providing input from, I am a/an:
[ ] 1. informed layman [ ] 2. practitioner [X] 3. expert [ ] 4. other (please specify): (Not Answered)
Question 3a Ontology Value -
"In an ever more automated world, ontologies represent an advance in the efforts in automation. The IT standards community is attempting to reach consensus on how to do this for many aspects of business processing. The consensus agreements, the standards, help new developers understand accepted practice, speeding implementations and interoperability.
In particular, ontologies will enhance the ability for users to find relevant data, compare data across different sources, and make conclusions based on the data at hand. There are many new kinds of applications possible, and we've only begun to scratch the surface."
Question 3b Ontology Issues -
"For standards developers, the biggest issue is to keep up with all the hype. There is a lot being said about ontologies in papers and books. Finding common ground and making sure the footing is solid, i.e., making sure some technology really proves itself in the market place or in implementations, are precursors to building widely accepted standards."
Question 3c Ontology Problems -
"Gruber's generally accepted definition of ontology suffers because the term "specification" is already defined in the ISO standards community, and it almost certainly doesn't mean the same thing. At the core is what ontologies are really about, and it seems to some of us that an essential characteristic is the existence of a well-defined computational model (inference or reasoning capability?). For IT standards, this is where the focus for an agreeable definition should be."
Question 3d Corresponding Solutions -
"ODM from OMG has made an excellent start."
Question 4aGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: Metadata Gloss: Data that defines and describes other data Reference (citation/url): http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/ITTF.htm Click on Freely Available; Scroll to 11179 Artifact (name/version): ISO/IEC 11179 - Metadata registries - Artifact Ref. (url): same
Question 4a1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[X] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4a2 Additional Remarks -
"This standard specifies a framework for recording and managing the semantics of data."
Question 4bGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: concept Gloss: unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics Reference (citation/url): ISO 704 Artifact (name/version): Principles of terminology - Artifact Ref. (url): http://www.iso.ch
Question 4b1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [X] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4b2 Additional Remarks -
"Theory of terminology is basic to understanding what data are."
Question 4cGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: characteristic Gloss: Abstraction of a property of an object or of a set of objects Reference (citation/url): ISO 704 Artifact (name/version): Principles of terminology - Artifact Ref. (url): http://www.iso.ch
Question 4c1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[X] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4c2 Additional Remarks -
"See 4b"
Question 4dGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: Object Gloss: Anything perceivable or conceivable Reference (citation/url): ISO 704 Artifact (name/version): Principles of terminology - Artifact Ref. (url): http://www.iso.ch
Question 4d1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[X] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4d2 Additional Remarks -
"See 4c"
Question 4eGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: Concept system Gloss: Set of concepts and the relations among them Reference (citation/url): ISO 704 Artifact (name/version): Principles of terminology - Artifact Ref. (url): http://www.iso.ch
Question 4e1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [X] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4e2 Additional Remarks -
"(Not Answered)"
Question 4fGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: (Not Answered) Gloss: (Not Answered) Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered) Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered) - Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered)
Question 4f1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4f2 Additional Remarks -
"(Not Answered)"
Question 4gGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: (Not Answered) Gloss (definition): (Not Answered) Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered) Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered) - Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered)
Question 4g1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4g2 Additional Remarks -
"(Not Answered)"
Question 4hGlossary - Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community:
Term: (Not Answered) Gloss: (Not Answered) Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered) Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered) - Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered)
Question 4h1 Called An Ontology - On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community?
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely [ ] 2. 2 - rarely [ ] 3. 3 - sometimes [ ] 4. 4 - quite often [ ] 5. 5 - almost always
Question 4h2 Additional Remarks -
"(Not Answered)"
Question 5 Confirm Participation - where,
a 'convener' is a participant who provides substantive contribution to the [[OntologySummit2007]] initiative (through the online discourse, this survey, and other events leading to or during the workshops and the written communique process), and
a 'co-sponsor' is an organization who is providing technical or funding support (e.g. supporting member(s) of its technical staff to participate as a 'convener'), and/or endorsing the objective of this [[OntologySummit2007]],
[X] I agree that my name can be listed as a 'convener' of [[OntologySummit2007]] [ ] I will consider endorsing the [[OntologySummit2007]] communique. Please send it to me for review when it is ready. I will confirm my endorsement after the review. [ ] I confirm that you may list my organization as a 'co-sponsor' for [[OntologySummit2007]] (details below).
Question 5a Co-Sponsor confirmation:
Organization Name: (Not Answered) Link (url) to Logo: (Not Answered)