[kepler-dev] RE: [seek-kr-sms] computation ontologies

[Chad Berkley]

Hey Rich,

As I have been trying to classify the library, I've mostly come to the 
conclusion that your ideas on multiple classifications are correct.  My 
classification seems just as arbitrary as the one that is already there. 
  Mark and I are going to try to come up with an ecology-based 
categorization next week.  Hopefully that will at least make more sense 
to ecologists.

I'm kind of thinking right now that after we get a decent hierarchy 
working for the original actors, the best thing we could work on after 
that is allowing the user to customize that classification to his/her 
own needs.  It would be interresting to allow a user to upload his own 
classification to the grid to allow others to use it, although I'm not 
sure how many people would actually be willing to put in the time to 
customize their tree.

Hopefully Mark and I can come up with at least a preliminary ontology 
for the library next week so we can have something working by october 15.

Thanks for your 2 cents.

chad

Rich Williams wrote:
> Hey Chad -
> 
> I haven't worked on anything like an ontology of computation.  I've done
> some work a number of ontologies that might be of interest:  1) an ontology
> of statistical concepts, so that could be of use for describing actors that
> implement statistical methods  2) an ontology of biodiversity indices and 3)
> an ontology of ecological models.  But I suspect that these are more
> high-level than the kind of granularity you will need to classify the actor
> library as I know it.
> 
> Of course in some sense the actor library is already classified, as the
> existing directory structure can be seen as a hierarchical classification
> scheme.  Perhaps the problem is that ecologists and ecoinformatics people
> don't like the classification scheme of the engineers and computer
> scientists.  One issue I've thought of in this is that there will probably
> need to be multiple classification schemes, and that the classification of
> most interest to an end-user will depend on the domain expertise of that
> user and on the problem they are addressing.  For example, GARP is an
> ecological method, of interest when looking at spatial distributions of
> species on a landscape.  It is also a statistical method and could be of use
> in domains other than ecology and problems other than spatial distributions.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: seek-kr-sms-admin at ecoinformatics.org
>>[mailto:seek-kr-sms-admin at ecoinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Chad Berkley
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:59 AM
>>To: rich at sfsu.edu; Shawn Bowers; Matt Jones;
>>kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org; seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>>Subject: [seek-kr-sms] computation ontologies
>>
>>
>>Hi Rich,
>>
>>Shawn, Matt and I were having a conversation on IRC this morning about
>>ontologies in Kepler.  For the last couple days, I've been trying to
>>classify the actors in the actor library.  Shawn said you may have some
>>sort of computation ontology that might be helpful in doing this.  Do
>>you have anything of that sort?  Do you have any recommendations on how
>>I (we) should go about doing this?  The goal is to have (at least) a
>>preliminary categorization of the actors for the 10/15 kepler release.
>>Shawn has gotten Jena working in kepler so we now have an ontology based
>>search engine, but no real ontology to search with.  If you have any
>>ideas on this, we'd be stoked to hear them.
>>
>>thanks,
>>chad
>>_______________________________________________
>>seek-kr-sms mailing list
>>seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kepler-dev mailing list
> kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev