[xtm-wg] SUO: Topic Maps (fwd)

[Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>]

Hi,

The email below is from Chris Angus to the Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) 
list.  

(See   http://suo.ieee.org/email/threads.html  for the SUO archive.)


Chris's message brings Topic Maps to the attention of the SUO group.


There has also been discussion on the SUO list, especially by
Robert Kent, on the desirability of using several ontologies, to
avoid a more "monolithic onto-structure." 

See  

      http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg00405.html 
    
See also 

     http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg02875.html  

where he talks about a "'Classification Metatheory.'"

I mention these things in light of Bryan Thompson's recent email to xtm-wg
on rdf and topic maps, where he says, among other things:

   There has been a debate on this list concerning a single ontology for 
   all human knowledge.  Such an ontology is only viable if it supports 
   multiple parallel classification systems -- but a topic map can do 
   just that.

I think the SUO is still working towards _one_ standard upper ontology,
but there seem to be several strong voices within the group that reflect the 
desire for merging, integrating, or using multiple ontologies.


For what it's worth,

Jim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:02:27 -0000
From: Chris Angus <chris.angus@btinternet.com>
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: Topic Maps


There has been considerable discussion at times on this list as to the form
in which the SUO should be published.  Some of that discussion just recently
has been about what needs to be documented as the work proceeds and the
structure of the ontology but much of it has been about language, in
particular the role of SUO-KIF as a normative form and the possibility of
backing this up with an informative form, possibly in controlled english.

Just recently I have been involved in the final stages of XTM - the XML
version of the Topic Map paradigm.  It strikes me that there is a very
natural symbiosis between ontologies and topic maps - topic maps needs
published ontologies in order that topic maps may be well grounded,
ontologies would benefit from being made available as topic maps so that
they may be properly explained, understood and navigated, particularly over
the web.  I would therefore like to propose that we seriously consider the
use the topic map paradigm as the overarching mechanism for documenting the
Standard Upper Ontology, both as it evolves (that is documenting the work in
progress) and in its final form.

Note that my proposal does not in any way argue against either the use of
KIF as the normative language or controlled english (or whatever) as an
informative form.

Further information about topic maps may be found at www.TopicMaps.org and
access may be gained to the draft specification of XTM 1.0.

What do people think?

Chris Angus
KALIDO Product Architect
Tel: +44 16 9774 1504 / +44 20 7934 4960
chris.angus@btinternet.com / chris.angus@kalido.com
www.kalido.com







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981763983/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com