I also eat and breathe topic maps, mind maps, multi-dimensional
maps with semantic interleafs.
Jim
From: Jack Park
[mailto:jackpark@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:49 AM
To: ravi sharma
Cc: Disbrow, Jim; peter.yim@xxxxxxxx; bobsmithttl@xxxxxxxxx; Owen Ambur;
John Young; Wood, Elaine (NREL)
Subject: Re: Energy Water Nexus vis-a-vis the Climate Case Study for the
Ontology Summit 2010
Let me just offer a short
comment before I blow out of here for a meeting. I mention topic maps because I
eat and breathe topic maps. That, in my view, is not different from ontologies;
we can do ontologies in topic maps, but we can do a few more things than a
concise ontology anticipates.
That's not particularly important to ontology engineers who are tasked to
control laser surgical instruments, but to those who are assigned tasks of
understanding complex systems like biological, ecological, climate, etc, topic
maps add something. Let me explain.
I can import the entire cancer.owl (26k classes) document into a topic map
platform: it comes in as an owl file and remains an owl ontology. I then
"harvest" that ontology to create topic maps "subjects" and
their relationships, nomenclature, etc. In that sense, I am wrapping the
owl entity with a topic map, not replacing it. I can still run the inference
engines on the owl document, but also, over in the collaboration platform, I
can embellish the cancer subjects with tags, annotations, links to web pages,
structured dialogues about this or that, etc. Later, if things suggest
improvements or changes to the owl document, they can be mapped back. I can do
the same thing with database artifacts. (No, I cannot walk on water ;-)
That is why I suggested starting with a general topic map of the territory as
an exploration platform.
The open source platform I am developing to do this is based on Semantic
MediaWiki coupled to an IBIS (structured) conversation extension and my topic
map (RDF) platform. It's not ready for prime time now, but will be within the
next very few months.
It's just a suggestion. Nothing more than that.
Cheers
Jack
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:02 AM, ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Have you tried AllegroGraph and Gruff? They are free up to a
million triples? (I think - please check, not 100% sure)
I have yet to study the topic map or the graphic for E-W
cycle.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Disbrow, Jim <Jim.Disbrow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Good morning, Jack / Peter / Bob / Owen
/Ravi / John
The structure of our ontology will
probably wind up being constrained by technology, so picking the technology
(e.g, the ontology building tool) will define the structure (a less than
optimal position, but we are constrained in many directions). Let’s try to make
the wisest choice!
Do you have a preferred tool for
creating our ontology? Do you know if (and how) this preferred tool handles
“associations” (a Topic Map term) or relationships (an OWL/RDF term) robustly?
Can the tool start with a vector-oriented .pds file, such as the .pds behind
the Physical Fuel Cycle .pdf (posted in Google Docs “EnergyWaterNexus@xxxxxxxxx”)?
I’d like to start with this graphic and rebuild it into a usable ontology with
explicit relationships between the various topics – and am prepared to do it
myself, manually, if necessary.
Or do you know of (or have) a free topic
map builder that can be used to create our ontology? Or a tool that would take
an output from one of the free ontology builders (e.g., TopBraid, Protégé) and
work for us? Do you know if (and how) these tools handle “associations” (a
Topic Map term) or relationships (an OWL/RDF term) robustly? If we can follow
Jack’s suggestion (below), it would be beneficial to the Case Study’s outcome
(my opinion).
On a related subject: DOE Island in
Second Life has opened its doors (in Beta), and Energy Ant is a virtual bot
there, using an AI that is driven by an AIML file. Per existing agreements, I
will have a large degree of input and control in the process for building out
the AIML file. I was thinking to use this in collecting the questions that
people (SL visitors) would like answered – and make the ontology responsive to
these question. If we could use these questions to create an ontology directly,
it would be great, but I don’t know if this is doable – what do you think? Do
you know of a tool that would create an AIML file by transliterating from the
.pds behind the Physical Fuel Cycle graphic posted in Google Docs?
On another related subject: We are
currently getting the open-source code used by the US Air Force for testing
ontologies for robustness, so stay tuned for progress on this. We could use the
Ontology we build as the basis for testing whether we can answer the questions
that are posed to Energy Ant correctly – or not. The creators of this tool have
generously offered to help (with constraints based on their current overloaded
work schedule), and have used the free TopBraid tool in their projects.
Who else should we be directing these
questions toward?
Thanks and have a good day,
Jim
The problems associated with EnergyWaterNexus@xxxxxxxxx
seem to have been fixed, and it should be working for all of us now.
From: Jack
Park [mailto:jackpark@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:58 PM
To: Disbrow, Jim
Subject: Re: Energy Water Analysis 2010
Jim,
These seem to be coming through fine. Replying to this email directly doesn't
work.
The pdf diagram seems ripe for transliteration into a topic map as a first step
towards an ontology. By putting it into a topic map, we can play with it in a
variety of ways before distilling it into any official ontology.
Jack
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
|
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/energy-water-nexus/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/socop-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:energy-water-nexus-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/energy-water-nexus/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?EnergyWaterNexus (01)
|