Knowldege-Level Modelling Glossary: Request for FeedbackMike Uschold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Mike Uschold <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 12:28:37 BST
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Knowldege-Level Modelling Glossary: Request for Feedback
Cc: 0770GALL@s1.cise.it, Michael.Wolf~T052211@mhs.us.swissbank.com,
S.Kneebone@cov.ac.uk, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
This is a REQUEST for FEEDBACK on a proposed GLOSSARY OF TERMS covering
the general topic of 'KNOWLEDGE-LEVEL MODELS and KNOWLEDGE-LEVEL
MODELLING'. This is roughly synonymous with `CONCEPTUAL MODEL [ LING ]'
which we take to be distinguished from other modelling activities
chiefly in that it [largely] IGNORES IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
This was produced as part of the EuroKnowledge Project, whose primary
aim is to identify the extent to which the emerging field concerned with
this topic is ready for some degree of standardising, and to make some
initial recommendations for whether, when and how to proceed.
The difficult first step is identifying and attempting to define terms such as
conceptual model, ontology, problem [solving], task, knowledge and domain. In
order for this effort to be worthwhile, it is important that it best reflects
the important ideas in the field and the common usage for terms. The more
feedback we get from experts in the field, the more useful this glossary will
be as a point of reference within the field and for people entering the field.
We have a review meeting around 10 July, so if you wish your feedback to
be taken into account by then, we will need it during the FIRST WEEK IN
JULY. If you cannot make that deadline but *are* interested in giving
feedback, it is still very welcome and will be incorporated in future
releases and eventually, we hope, a publication.
If you know of anyone else that would like to know about this, then feel
free to forward this message to them.
If you are interested in this and DO expect to give feedback,
PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE OF YOUR TIME RIGHT NOW
and let me know WHEN you hope to read and respond to this document.
Any feedback of any sort is welcome. It will be easiest for us if you
use the following format (see below) as a rough guide for structuring your
The glossary may be obtained from:
If you cannot access this directly, let me know,
I will send you the ascii.
Thanks in advance for any feedback you choose to provide,
--------------------------- GLOSSARY FEEDBACK -----------------------------
* Do you think it is worthwhile to produce this sort of glossary at this
time? Why or why not?
* Broadly, how good a job have we done of accurately reflecting the
important ideas, terms and definitions associated with this field?
* For any specific concept or term, if you disagree with the choice of
term or the definition, please:
- explain why
- if possible, propose or sketch how to fix it.
If the change is significant, then please cite references which back
your argument for a better alternative.
* Identify any terms or concepts that are
- superfluous and thus should be EXcluded
- missing and should be INncluded
and give your reasons. For missing concepts, suggest a terms and give a
rouch sketch of how you would define it.
Being optimists, we will assume that no comment means no disagreement :-).