Hello (01)
I agree with Adam that "context" is a vague notion. That's why I loosely
define "context" as "the descriptive information about a thing" to the
layman, and as the "meta", "metadata", or "container" of some "content" to
the somewhat more technical. From an ontology perspective, context is given
via attributes. (02)
Does the SUMO root class "Entity" itself have a "meta" container? If you
think of each distinct thing or subject in the universe as "entities"
(little e), then their meta is the one-whole-universe as an Entity/container
(big E). There is only one physical root entity/universe, but there is also
the abstract
spiritual/intelligence/implicate-order/interconnection/non-locality
perspective and the meta-physical Zero Point Force (XPF) perspective. To
reconcile the physical and abstract/metaphysical, I typically use "Oneness"
as the name of the root Entity class in my ontologies. (03)
My own business (i.e., enterprise as purposeful endeavor) ontology's entity
"context classification" scheme has six main facets, each of which
represents a drill-down (i.e., hierarchical) taxonomy (i.e., a catalog and
inventory of like-things' names). My six taxonomic facets are location,
organization, organization unit, function, process, and resource. These
contextual dimensions make understandable and useful description and search
criteria for novice users, as well as for expert searchers and classifying
people, teams, or mechanisms. See http://one-world-is.com. (04)
I'll state for the general audience that you can have "hierarchies" serving
several purposes, including the normal inheritance (i.e., type-of, is-a,
generalization/specification, subsume/derive) hierarchy found in
classification systems such as taxonomies and catalogs, and the associative
hierarchy (i.e., has-a, contains-a, is-contained-in, or proceeds, succeeds,
or references, or prior, or future, or variant) found in a product's parts
list or a geography, for example. (05)
As illustration, look at the inherent associative relationships, the
architecture, in my six taxonomic facets as being the descriptive context of
a geography's contents. A Location contains Organizations, which authorize
Organization Units, which perform Functions, which apply Processes, which
use InputResources to create resource OutputProducts under Process resource
Controls using process Mechanism resources, with the created OutputProduct
flowing between Locations to serve as InputResources to other succeeding
Processes within comparable structures/architectures. (06)
Note that the collection of Functions, Processes, and Resources of a given
Organization Unit comprise the "Work" content of that Organization Unit, and
the flow of that Work across Organization Units in a sequence is known as
"Work Flow", where each link in the Work Flow chain adds value in the form
of a finished product, and where the collection of Work links across
Organization Units comprise a "Value-Chain". The "context" of the Work
content is the "Organization Unit within an Organization at a Location".
Also note that a Work capability is typically packaged for sale as
"services", and this Work Capability Service is being increasingly
automated, as are the related Workflow and Value-chains (e.g., Web
Services). A packages service, for sale to others, is also a process
Mechanism resource. The Work content doesn't change for these packages,
only the context of the Work. (07)
Roy Roebuck
Ph: 703-598-2351
roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
one-world-is.com/beam
Calendar: http://one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr.htm
FreeBusy: http://one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr.vfb (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:50 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] ; ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The issue of Context [was - Re: [ontolog-forum] file comments
-- representation issues: voting question?] (09)
Peter,
There are many ways of dealing in a logical system with what lay people
call context. The most common is simply to embody that context directly as
knowledge in a knowledge base file. That explicit knowledge is then the
context of reasoning. We'll be defining terms with axioms that express
their full meaning in context.
Part of the problem with talking about context is that it's a very vague
and general notion. One is no more required to have an explicit notion of
context in a knowledge base than one is required to have, for example, a
notion of "relevance", or "quality". A knowledge base can have context,
relevance and quality without having such notions as defined terms. If we
go about working at a concrete level with orders and invoices, this issue
won't come up unless it's a research interest independent of our actual
practical enterprise. (010)
Adam (011)
At 03:33 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>Fair, Adam.
>
>I am curious, then, how would/should we be handling context in or
>UBL-ontology, or, more precisely, in building an ontology for the
>business domain (as "context" is an integral part of 'real' business) --
>we can't simply say we won't deal with it when we can't logically
>represent it, can we?
>
>-ppy
>--
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:27:18 -0800:
>
>>Peter,
>> I personally don't see how a discussion on context logic can do
>> anything but sap energy from our nascent formalization effort. If
>> there's a serious proposal, I'd suggest that it be offered to a peer
>> reviewed conference, since any practical implementation of context logic
>> and reasoning that could actually help us here would also be a major
>> advance in the study of context logic. If a proposal can't get accepted
>> or hasn't been formulated to the point of even being a mature submission
>> to the context logic conference, it's unlikely to be of any practical
>> benefit to this group. The primary context conference web site I'm
>> aware of is <http://www.context.umcs.maine.edu/>
>>Adam
>
>
>>At 12:47 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>>
>>>Adam,
>>>
>>>1.
>>> > ... But there's no agreed on solution for it, ... (and)
>>> > ... we don't collectively have the background to even address the
>>> > topic intelligently. ...
>>>
>>>I am in agreement, and hence my earlier suggestion to:
>>>
>>> >> that we don't pause our current attempt to formalize UBL v1.0 ... >>
>>> ... just make sure it does not break up our project work.
>>>(if you prefer the word "distract", that is fine too)
>>>
>>> >> start a new thread to discuss on how we want to deal with
>>> >> "context"
>>>
>>>and,
>>>
>>> >> I humbly solicit input from those of you who can throw some light
>>> >> onto the matter. Try bringing in people who aren't already in the
>>> >> community to help too.
>>>
>>>2. As for,
>>>
>>> > context is important ... But ... we're not going to solve it here.
>>>
>>>We will have to address this in due course, we might as well start the
>>>separate discourse sooner rather than later (provided that it is not
>>>hampering our progress with the more basic attempts.)
>>>I think we'll all hope that you are wrong on this one. :-)
>>>
>>>-ppy
>>>--
>
>
>>>Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:49 -0800:
>>>
>>>>Peter,
>>>> I agree that context is important. But there's no agreed on
>>>> solution for it, and we're not going to solve it here. I'd venture to
>>>> say we don't collectively have the background to even address the
>>>> topic intelligently. People have made careers out of working on this
topic.
>>>>Most folks here don't even have a background in formal logic. This is
>>>>another topic, like so many others, that can only distract us from the
>>>>practical task at hand, that doesn't need content in order to make
>>>>concrete progress.
>>>>Adam
>
>
>>>>At 10:53 AM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Pat,
>>>>>
>>>>> > What point of Adam's did you agree with? Could you put it
>>>>> > in your own words?
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with Adam that "physical" and "abstract" are exhaustive under
>>>>>"entity" as represented in SUMO now. I also agree that "context"
>>>>>constitutes a whole separate area that is being studied and pursued.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing whether "context" belongs in
>>>>>SUMO. I am, however, of the opinion that "whether or not" or "how"
>>>>>context fits into a KIF based ontology (or into SUMO, in our case) is
>>>>>beyond the scope of the ontolog-forum (and should belong to a
>>>>>SUMO-forum or SUO-forum wherever they are.)
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not discounting the importance of the matter, though. In fact I
>>>>>am positive that "context" will be a key area that needs to be
>>>>>addressed if we really want to make a contribution to UBL and to the
>>>>>development of business ontologies (I was among those who brought up
>>>>>the need for a "context" driven example in our suite of use cases).
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree then, Pat, that framing it (the need for "context" in our
>>>>>representation) in that context makes sense. Our situation is that:
>>>>>Pat suggested one possible solution. Adam disagreed, and cited some
>>>>>relevant work.
>>>>>
>>>>>We all want (and need) to move the project forward. May I, then,
>>>>>suggest that we don't pause our current attempt to formalize UBL v1.0,
>>>>>but to start a new thread to discuss on how we want to deal with
>>>>>"context". I am sure the discourse is going to be useful and
>>>>>interesting, but long and drawn out ... Let's just make sure it does
>>>>>not break up our project work.
>>>>>
>>>>>I humbly solicit input from those of you who can throw some light onto
>>>>>the matter. Try bringing in people who aren't already in the community
>>>>>to help too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fyi, ... I did a google on "guha mccarthy barwise situation calculus",
>>>>>and it returned 279 hits (guha mccarthy situation calculus). A lot of
>>>>>those hits will make interesting reading to some of us, like myself.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards. -ppy
>>>>>--
>
>
>>>>>Patrick Cassidy wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:00:03 -0500:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter --
>>>>>> I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by your note:
>>>>>>[PY]
>>>>>> > Good point, Adam.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > May I suggest that discussions specific to Upper Ontology be
>>>>>> considered
>>>>>> > as being outside of our scope here. We should, predominantly, be
>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>> > in the "business" domian ontology. Is that ok with both of you,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Pat & Adam?
>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Discussions like that should probably be done elsewhere, say, for
>>>>>> > example, at the IEEE-SUO list.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What point of Adam's did you agree with? Could you put it
>>>>>>in your own words?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The additional content I have been suggesting is in most cases
>>>>>>*directly* related to the business Ontology, including the concept of
>>>>>>a "Context", which is used within the UBL specification. More
>>>>>>detail will have to be added to "Context" to capture the different
>>>>>>types of business context that they feel are relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be quite happy to pursue discussions one-on-one
>>>>>>with anyone who has any questions, objections, or
>>>>>>suggestions for change in anything I have suggested.
>>>>>>However, I will simply ignore any suggestions to junk
>>>>>>everything and start all over, as Adam has recommended.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I plan to suggest additional content as time permits,
>>>>>>and will be happy to discuss specifics about this content
>>>>>>in any forum. I will also make, as I have already, comments
>>>>>>and suggestions about what others recommend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have bent over backwards to avoid making any changes
>>>>>>in the existing SUMO/MILO, focusing on additions, with
>>>>>>only a few renamings where there was a logical error
>>>>>>(such as the use of "contract" in different senses)
>>>>>>or ambiguity was a threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have sent another note explaining why I think that
>>>>>>restricting additions of content from members (except
>>>>>>for logical inconsistency) is a really really **bad**
>>>>>>idea, and why addition of content only peripherally
>>>>>>related to the core business concepts can be helpful.
>>>>>>Whether or not a suggested business-related concept
>>>>>>captures the reality of business practice, or is
>>>>>>consistent with the UBL version, are important issues
>>>>>>for us. Discussing whether a peripheral concept happens to
>>>>>>be essential at this particular time is likely to be a great
>>>>>>time-waster, with no possible objective resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone have any constructive comments on the
>>>>>>business concepts I have suggested? Anyone?
>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>=============================================
>
>
>>>>>Adam Pease wrote Sat, 21 Feb 2004 08:26:09 -0800:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Pat,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In general, while of course it's fair to have new content that is
>>>>> > in progress, and only partially defined, you are suggesting very
>>>>> > substantial additions at a high level of the ontology. The
>>>>> > standard must be quite different there. If someone adds a new
>>>>> > class JoineryInvoice, and makes it a subclass of Invoice, no harm
>>>>> > done. You have however proposed, among other things, adding a
>>>>> > new concept right at the top (under the top node of Entity),
>>>>> > called "Context", and then a whole new tree of concepts which
>>>>> > include Situation, Event etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Now, people spend large parts of their research careers (John
>>>>> > McCarthy, Guha etc) working on context logic. There are yearly
>>>>> > conferences on the topic. Context usually involves a context logic
>>>>> > that is not first order. And yet, you've inserted this notion
>>>>> > without definition. In addition, since the first level concepts
>>>>> > of Physical and Abstract already form a partition (are exhaustive),
>>>>> > it's not even clear in the most basic sense what "Context" means,
>>>>> > nor how it would be used in inference, that in most prior
>>>>> > research has involved speculative reasoning facilities that
>>>>> > don't even exist yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> > From there the problem just gets worse since you seem to be
>>>>> > proposing a whole new scheme for representing situations for SUMO.
>>>>> > Again, this is an area that has received a vast amount of research
>>>>> > effort, and you've provided only a taxonomy. New content at this
>>>>> > level simply has to be justified with axioms even to be a coherent
>>>>> > proposal. Otherwise we don't have any basis for a coherent
>>>>> > discussion about its merits.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Adam
>>>>>---
>
>
>>>>> > At 12:56 AM 2/21/2004 -0500, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Adam -
>>>>> >> Thanks for your comment. Since the issues you discuss
>>>>> >> are relevant to much of the work we will be doing, I am
>>>>> >> sending this reply to the whole Ontolog group. The bottom
>>>>> >> line of this message is that I think we need to vote
>>>>> >> on the issue, so I hope all Ontolog members will
>>>>> >> slog through this and provide their own feedback. ...[snip]...
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|