As discussed in the meeting on Wednesday, February 15, the first one who introduces or resumes an email topic, should indicate so with [<topic>] at the beginning of their subject line. The OASIS mailer will then introduce [legalruleml], so we will see the LegalRuleML “topic line” [legalruleml] [<topic>]. When participants just reply to such an email, an additional RE: or similar prefixes will appear, but that is fine. We also considered to create a glossary of relevant, unique (concise) topic names.
Let me try a few steps in this direction by distinguishing two main topics, ontology and XML, from two recent emails. I am starting here with topic line ontology in response to Tara’s initial email. I will at a later time respond with topic line XML to Monica’s follow-up email.
Regarding what Tara wants to see clarified:
1. In the spirit of reuse in the Semantic Web, and given the time constraints of the TC, I think existing high-quality, formal ontologies, such as DOLCE, LKIF, and possibly some by TC members (developed outside the TC, in previous/parallel work) should be just IRI-referenced on the Web. I think only when required vocabulary cannot be provided by such external ontologies, should development of new ontologies be considered inside the TC. In any case, we should create a (wiki?) page linking to Web-reusable candidate ontologies and evaluate their use for LegalRuleML.
2. Building on the separation of concerns in #1, LegalRuleML’s syntax should be kept entirely independent from the ontologies, by accessing ontology vocabulary through IRIs (occurring just as RuleML attribute values) where needed, e.g. for individuals, functions, relations, and types.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:37 PM
Subject: [legalruleml] Legal Domain Ontology
From the discussion today it sounds like part of LegalRuleML will be an ontology of concepts in the legal domain.
Somethings I would like to see clarified are:
1. to what extent will this ontology be taken from existing ontologies, including upper ontologies, such as DOLCE , or legal domain ontologies such as lkif , and to what extent will it be new;
2. is it desirable that the parts of the syntax that are dependent on the ontology be separable (through modularization) from the parts that are independent.
I would argue that in #1 as much as possible be used from existing ontologies provided these ontologies have a broad acceptance, and for #2 as much separation as possible, so that if/when the ontology evolves or is replaced, it has minimal effects on the syntax that is independent of the legal domain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org