Thanks, Adam. I totally agree. -ppy
-- (01)
Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:21:16 -0700: (02)
> Hi Peter,
>
> At 02:13 PM 8/7/2003 -0700, Peter P. Yim wrote:
>
>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:48:57 -0700:
>> > Peter,
>> > If the model is created in KIF and then translated to Protege this
>> > might work, but if the model is created in Protege and translated to
>> > KIF you'll have the problems I mentioned analogous to writing C
>> > style in C++.
>>
>> Sounds good. I was, in fact, looking forward to more discussion on
>> "how" we can end up with both KIF and Protégé. Therefore, what you
>> point out here is most relevant indeed.
>>
>> > It's good that Protege is familiar, and has a large user
>> > community, but that line of argument could be extended to XML.
>> > More people are familiar with XML. It has a larger user base
>> > and tool set, so why not just create XML rather than worry
>> > about ontologies?
>> &
>> > if the argument for a frame representation is that it has a larger
>> > user base, or more tools (which is the argument I believe that
>> > Peter was making), than that same argument could be made ad
>> > absurdum to argue for just sticking with XML, and not trying to
>> > create an ontology.
>>
>> I was using that argument to support my case that "Our solution will
>> need to be adopted and applied, if it were to even come close to being
>> successful", not to be confused with condoning that Protégé (or KIF,
>> or XML) is totally adequate, or optimal, on its own.
>
>
> ok, thanks for clarifying
>
>> My consideration extends beyond the ability to represent the knowledge
>> ... and is supposed to cover diffusion, user acceptance, and other
>> user adoption related "soft" (social, psychological, ...) issues as well.
>
>
> yes, that's important too
>
>> As mentioned, we would need to
>> ... "tackle both the science, as well as coming up with the
>> engineering solution that is "good enough" ..."
>>
>> I am sincerely hoping that we we can achieve the precision (as in the
>> "science") as well as being able to compromise, optimize, and DELIVER
>> a standard business ontology to the masses/industry (as in the
>> "engineering").
>>
>> The approach to achieving one or the other may be different, but that
>> should not preclude us from considering both, and to make an honest
>> attempt to achieving both at the same time. It's going to be a
>> challenge ... but then, we've got some *very* good people in the
>> community too! :-)
>
>
> I think we can accommodate both by creating a formal model in KIF and
> then translating out what's expressible in Protege and XML. If we work
> from more expressive to less expressive, I think we'll wind up with a
> good model. If we work the other way around my belief is that there
> will be a lot of wasted effort, and a poor result.
>
> Adam
>
>> Regards,
>> PPY
>> --
>>
>>
>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:28:15 -0700:
>>
>>> Kurt,
>>> At 10:18 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Kurt Conrad wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 2003-08-07 09:48 -0700, Adam Pease wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More people are familiar with XML. It has a larger user base and
>>>>> tool set, so why not just create XML rather than worry about
>>>>> ontologies?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I find this argument to be dismissive, it may point to the
>>>> core issues underlying the current debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't intend the comment to be dismissive. The point was that if
>>> the argument for a frame representation is that it has a larger user
>>> base, or more tools (which is the argument I believe that Peter was
>>> making), than that same argument could be made ad absurdum to argue
>>> for just sticking with XML, and not trying to create an ontology.
>>>
>>>> The question is not whether or not to create a XML representation.
>>>> That decision has been made (by another, larger group). The vast
>>>> majority of the work has been done. And the XML version will almost
>>>> certainly be ready before the fully-formalized ontological version.
>>>> Why, because more people are familiar with XML; it has a larger user
>>>> base and tool set; and -- perhaps more fundamentally -- it is an
>>>> appropriate fit for the targeted utilization scenarios.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree
>>>
>>>> From my perspective, it seems clear that the "UBL ontology" will
>>>> take a variety of forms.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. In prior work that I've mentioned, I've created a formal
>>> ontology in logic and then extracted what can be expressed in a
>>> relational database.
>>>
>>>> Each representation will have relative strengths and weaknesses.
>>>> In sort, logical expressiveness is only one measure of value.
>>>> Clearly, the XML representation of UBL is well-optimized for some
>>>> uses, but weak -- or even inadequate -- for others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree
>>>
>>>> That was the basis for our decision to create a formalized ontology
>>>> based on the UBL concepts. What other representations should be
>>>> produced? I don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I can follow this discussion at a general level, I don't have
>>>> a sufficient grasp of the subtleties to have strong opinions
>>>> regarding ontological tools and languages. In fact, about the only
>>>> bias that I have is one of creeping incrementalism: Start your
>>>> semantic formalization simply, and add complexity and richness as
>>>> your requirements, understanding, and resources warrant it.
>>>>
>>>> From my vantage point, I'm seeing indications that a KIF
>>>> representation might not be the best fit for all usage and
>>>> interaction scenarios.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree
>>>
>>>> This observation does not imply that a KIF representation should
>>>> not be produced, or even how and when. Rather, it suggests that to
>>>> meet a broad set of user requirements (perhaps, even, including the
>>>> needs of the Ontolog modeling community) work on KIF needs to be
>>>> balanced with work on other technology platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see that that follows. The work can be done in logic, in
>>> order to have a deep analysis of the domain with formal axioms, and
>>> then less expressive versions can be extracted for different
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>>> I guess this leads me to a corollary question: Does the decision to
>>>> produce an ontology in KIF effectively preclude working with any
>>>> other languages and/or platforms?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but I believe the reverse is at least partially true. If we
>>> choose to develop the ontology as a frame system, it will have to
>>> duplicate a lot of the content that already exists in SUMO, and then
>>> won't be transferable to a formal ontology in logic later.
>>>
>>>> If so, are the tradeoffs acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> Or, looking at it from the requirements side: What representations
>>>> are needed? Is KIF adequate to handle all of the expected
>>>> utilization scenarios?
>>>
>>>
>>> KIF (or more generally first order logic) will certainly not be the
>>> appropriate "object language" for many implementations, but it's the
>>> best language available for formalizing a domain.
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>> /s/ kwc 2003.08.07 10:17
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:48:57 -0700:
>> > Peter,
>> > If the model is created in KIF and then translated to Protege this
>> > might work, but if the model is created in Protege and translated to
>> > KIF you'll have the problems I mentioned analogous to writing C
>> > style in C++.
>> > It's good that Protege is familiar, and has a large user
>> > community,
>> > but that line of argument could be extended to XML. More people are
>> > familiar with XML. It has a larger user base and tool set, so why
>> > not just create XML rather than worry about ontologies?
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> > At 09:41 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Peter P. Yim wrote:
>> >
>> >> I will not question the appropriateness of KIF, in terms of formality
>> >> and expressiveness. On the other hand, we have Protégé, a tool
>> >> familiar with, probably, by the most number of ontology practitioners
>> >> (albeit small as they are already) as substantiated by our own survey
>> >> (see:
>> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2002-11/msg00035.html )
>> >> and Protégé's user statistics (see:
>> >>
>>
>http://purpleslurple.cim3.org/ps.php?theurl=http://protege.stanford.edu/#purp169
>
>>
>> >> ).
>> >>
>> >> Referring, again, to both our [ontolog-forum] charter (see:
>> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl#nid011 ),
>> >> and that of UBL's (see:
>> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/charter.php ),
>> >> we are out to contribute to solving an e-business industry
>> >> standardization problem. Our solution will need to be adopted and
>> >> applied, if it were to even come close to being successful.
>> >>
>> >> As such, I am in favor of having our work represented (at least) both
>> >> in KIF and in Protégé (I actually thought that was what we had agreed
>> >> upon before) -- with both being our normative deliverable. We need
>> >> to leverage the Protégé users, developers, plug-ins, ... etc.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, my suggestion is that we should focus the conversation, not
>> >> on whether its should be KIF or Protégé, but rather, how can we
>> >> deliver BOTH, and in so doing tackle both the science, as well as
>> >> coming up with the engineering solution that is "good enough" to be an
>> >> applicable industry standard -- and, be able to help the industry
>> >> migrate to that solution with ease.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> PPY
>> >>
>> >> P.S. May I request that we all try to make sure that the discussion is
>> >> consistent with the subject line -- this will greatly facilitate
>> >> future retrieval/re-use of the knowledge, at least by humans. :-)
>> -ppy
>> >> --
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
>> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|