Dear Maria, (01)
many thanks for your valuable feedback (also for that to the WD itself). (02)
>> The first one will select the default translation, the other ones will
>> select named translations.
>>
> yes, I read that, but it doesn't take away my concern&questions about
> your assumption that the translations/transformations/approximations
> will somehow magically pop up out of nowhere and how that is going to be
> implemented. (see also comment further below) (03)
Indeed, translations won't pop up magically. We need to define them
(some of them as part of the standard), and this work still needs to be
done. Luckily, we can rely on literature where translations already have
been defined, so the work mainly will consist of selecting and possibly
improving existing translations. (04)
> re-reading what I wrote, I realize I wasn't very clear. I meant there
> are already some logics (and implemented) that can be used to give
> semantics to the alignments, so that one could think of a fuzzy
> alignment, or something similar.
> I'm aware we won't be able to get everything in DOL, but the
> RELATION-REF and ALIGN-TYPE on p25 are underspecified, likewise a
> CONFIDENCE measure. (05)
Indeed, the semantics of RELATION-REF still needs to be added in the WD,
but I do not expect any problems.
The semantics of ALIGN-TYPE is just a pair of ontologies (the ontologies
being aligned).
Concerning CONFIDENCE, this is currently specified on p. 25 to be a real
number between 0 and 1. This conforms with the alignment API. Do you
have other suggetsions? (06)
> The latter may be extended with either having the
> confidence measure or some other measure defined by a logic with which
> one declares the alignment (I admit that a, e.g., 'rough subsumption'
> isn't worked out well in the research as of yet). the RELATION-REF by,
> at least, one where the relations are defined and give an option such
> that the user can specify the type of relation. (07)
This is an interesting idea. The user could define new RELATION-REFs
using some axioms. Do you have a use case that could inspire the
necessary extension of DOL? (08)
> thus far, there are informal notes in the OWL ontology's annotation,
> which were made by Aldo Gangemi, who developed the OWL DL version of
> DOLCE based on the original formalization in D18. We could choose to go
> for a new one that transforms it into a OWL 2 DL version. Maybe Stefano
> is reading this as well, so we could do it together, if he's interested
> in it. (09)
Good. I am interested in this as well. (010)
>> If you have a suggestion of better use cases relating to [1,4,5], they
>> are most welcome.
[...]
> regarding [1]: I know of only one paper that looks at semantic [...] (011)
I am justing reading [1] and will come back to this later on. (012)
All the best,
Till (013)
--
Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski Cartesium, room 2.51 Phone +49-421-218-64226
DFKI GmbH Bremen Fax +49-421-218-9864226
Cyber-Physical Systems Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx
Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, D-28359 Bremen
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/ (014)
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
principal office, *not* the address for mail etc.!!!:
Trippstadter Str. 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
management board: Prof. Wolfgang Wahlster (chair), Dr. Walter Olthoff
supervisory board: Prof. Hans A. Aukes (chair)
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (016)
|