Duane, (01)
Two things I need your help on ... (02)
1. when you start a new conversation (I noticed that you have already
change the subject line already, which is good, but) please also start
a new thread (use "new-msg" rather than "reply-to" from your mail
client - as the mailman system picks up on the message-ID and thread
the conversation in our archives, and not the subject line.) (03)
2. please remove the confidentiality clause (in your footer) before
posting, or use a different email address which doesn't present that
issue; or, at the least, say in the body of the message that people
can ignore that statement - otherwise, your post would be in conflict
with the Ontolog community's Open IPR Policy -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32 (... I'm
sure this is not new, and I do sound like a broken record :) ... but
I still need eevryone's help on this!) (04)
Thanks in advance. =ppy
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
-- (05)
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Duane Nickull
<duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been working with a climate group for a while on creating a top level
> domain ontology for climate tracking. While we thought we had everything
> settled, some surprises came up. In particular, we found some new evidence
> that lead us to believe we had missed a major portion of our model for our
> ontology pertaining to new proof global warming was having concrete effects.
>
> To illustrate the point, consider this evidence:
>
>http://technoracle.blogspot.ca/2013/04/finally-concrete-proof-of-global-warming.html
>
> Any ideas on how to dynamically adjust the ontology work to compensate for
> stuff like this?
>
> Duane Nickull
>
> ***********************************
> Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
> Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
> i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
> b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> t. @duanenickull
>
>
> NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
> information. If you are the intended recipient, please consider this a
> privileged communication, not to be forwarded without explicit approval from
> the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any
> dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended
> recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. The originator reserves the
> right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks for quality
> control purposes. (06)
> From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, 1 April, 2013 9:12 AM
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why a data model does not an ontology make
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Michel, Leo, and Michael,
>>
>> JFS
>> > But what was produced [by the SW] failed to address the requirements Tim
>> > proposed and many others (including Robert and me) believe are
>> > essential.
>>
>> MD
>> > can you list/summarize the requirements and why you think the steps that
>> > the semantic web effort has made do *not* contribute to those
>> > requirements?
>>
>> As I've said repeatedly, three words that Tim B-L emphasized in the DAML
>> proposal of 2000 were diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability.
>>
>> In the final DAML report of 2005, two of them (diversity and
>> interoperability) were mentioned just once and heterogeneity was
>> never mentioned at all.
>>
>> I also believe that Robert Meersman's short summary is very good:
>>
>> http://starlab.vub.ac.be/website/files/MeersmanBuffaloAug2007.pdf
>> > Why "the" Semantic Web has failed.
>> > * Data models vs. ontologies
>> > * Legacy systems
>> > * Scalability
>> > * Methodology
>>
>> For point #1, RDF + SPARQL is just YADM -- Yet Another Data Model.
>> It has few advantages and many disadvantages over data models that have
>> been in use for decades. I have no objection to YADM if people find it
>> useful, but I have serious objections to edicting any single data model
>> as a requirement for the Semantic Web.
>
>
> So, what we have here is at least some effort towards standardizing at least
> one KR format with web standards in mind. RDF specifies URIs for naming and
> provides an XML serialization for processing compatibility. Still, other
> serializations are available (my preferred is n-triples), and other
> vocabularies can build on it (e.g. formal KR languages like OWL or
> vocabularies for representation of specific knowledge e.g. SKOS, PROV, etc).
> Now that we have RDF(S) + OWL (+OWL profiles), we see many efforts to align
> KR languages (e.g. RIF, others) against these - which I think is highly
> desired for interoperability.
>
>
>>
>>
>> For point #2, Tim B-L noted the importance of interoperability with
>> legacy systems, but the DAML report ignored them completely. I can't
>> blame them for not doing everything in five years, but they have not
>> done *anything* to support legacy systems in the past 13 years.
>>
>> And please do not repeat the claim that they provided a tool to convert
>> RDBs to RDF. Interoperability means that the legacy systems work with
>> the new tools *concurrently* -- not by means of forced conversion.
>>
>
> ok, how about ontop developed by Mariano Rodriguez and colleagues:
> http://ontop.inf.unibz.it/
> it enables one to map OWL-QL ontologies to SQL database and answer queries.
> no conversion required.
>
>
>
>>
>> For point #3, the SW people claim that OWL is decidable. That only
>> means that decisions terminate in *finite* time -- even though that
>> time might be greater than the age of the universe. For anything
>> the size of the WWW, scalability means no worse than (N log N) time.
>>
>
> and there have been many projects to deal with scalability. Consider WebPie
> (http://www.few.vu.nl/~jui200/webpie.html) by Frank van Harmelan and
> colleagues which does RDFS + OWL Horst reasoning using map reduce.
>
>
>>
>> For point #4, please reread Robert M's slides for an example of what
>> a methodology can and should support.
>>
>
> then my point is that the onus is on those that wish to bring new technology
> to the masses to go through the standardization effort where it can be
> subject to criticism and compromise for real world deployment.
>
> Best,
>
> m.
>
>
>
>>
>> Leo
>> > The closest that relational databases get to having a semantic model
>> > is the conceptual schema, which is a type of conceptual model (modeled
>> > in a graphic Entity-Relation-Attribute language, with cardinality
>> > restrictions).
>>
>> Unfortunately, there was never a standard for a conceptual schema, and
>> the vendors merely pasted the term 'conceptual schema' on top of what
>> they were doing anyway. They turned it into an advertising slogan.
>>
>> E-R-A + cardinality is a requirement that must be specified in any
>> conceptual schema (or ontology), but it's far from sufficient.
>> And most of the published OWL ontologies do little or nothing
>> to go beyond that level.
>>
>> From 1978 to 2000, the published R & D on the conceptual schema and
>> related issues went far beyond what the vendors provided, Tim B-L
>> cited some of that work, but the DAML developers ignored it.
>>
>> Leo
>> > Now the above view does have rare exceptions in the database world:
>> > e.g.,
>> > Matthew West's work immediately springs to mind. Similarly, HighFleet
>> > (formerly Ontology Works) tries to bridge the ontology-database
>> > connection.
>> > Also, of course deductive databases try to combine logic programming +
>> > relational constructs, though these just focus on the implementational
>> > apparatus you would need for more expressive ontologies, but say nothing
>> > in particular about ontologies.
>>
>> I agree that the systems you mention are good. But there were many
>> years of very good systems that the SW ignored. Deductive DBs were
>> proposed in the 1970s -- note Planner and Microplanner. RDBs combined
>> with Prolog and other AI tools have been widely used since the '80s.
>> Tim B-L cited them in his DAML proposal of 2000, but the SW gnored them.
>>
>> By the way, two commercial companies *based* on Prolog + RDBs are
>> Mathematica and Experian. Mathematica started with Prolog as their
>> underlying reasoning engine in the '80s, and they have developed the
>> foundation into a very rich logic-programming system that uses RDBs
>> for external storage.
>>
>> Experian uses Prolog + RDBs for Big Data -- much bigger than any
>> application that uses RDF + OWL. They compute everybody's credit
>> rating on a daily basis with every imaginable input they can find.
>> They use Prolog so heavily that they bought the Prologia company.
>>
>> MB
>> > But I have to add that the transition between data model and ontology
>> > is fluent. In practice, you often have to make compromises - for example
>> > to
>> > enable better querying or because knowledge and application data cannot
>> > be
>> > untied easily.
>>
>> I agree. And those issues were addressed in the 3-schema strategy of
>> of the original ANSI/SPARC TR in 1978. The conceptual schema -- which
>> is very close, if not identical, to what we now call formal ontology --
>> was at the heart of the proposal. The physical schema, which is very
>> close, if not identical to what is called the data model, specifies
>> the data formats, layout, and structure. The application schema
>> specifies the APIs of the software.
>>
>> I also agree that the detailed ontologies will often use primitives
>> and operations that have a simple mapping to the preferred data model.
>> That is another reason why I have recommended an underspecified upper
>> level ontology with families of "microtheories" for more specialized
>> ontologies that are optimized for different kinds of applications.
>>
>> But those issues get into details that we have discussed many
>> times before, and I won't repeat them now.
>>
>> John
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michel Dumontier
> Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University
> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group
> http://dumontierlab.com
> _________________________________________________________________ Message
> Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (07)
|