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 the discussion today it sounds like
part of LegalRuleML will be an ontology of concepts in the
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com