[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Questions for Conrad Bock's upcoming presentation on 20

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Nicolas F Rouquette <nicolas.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:16:01 -0800
Message-id: <41F01181.203@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
I'm not sure what Conrad will talk about in his presentation.
However, there is an interesting prospect due to his expertise
with the PSL ontology he's working on at NIST:  
http://www.mel.nist.gov/psl/index.html    (01)

IMHO, PSL is a shining example of a superb formal ontology in the sense 
that:    (02)

1) it is modular (use the parts you need for an application or an 
extension of PSL)
2) it is solid (it has an axiomatic theory that defines the semantics of 
the ontology)    (03)

These characteristics make PSL a very desirable ontology to use in practice;
unfortunately, it is not very clear how to do so for the average 
ontology user.
In particular, I would be interested to hear what recommendations Conrad 
make on the following topics:    (04)

- PSL + Protege-OWL: has it been done? if not, are there some issues 
still to be resolved to stay within OWL-DL for automated reasoning purposes?    (05)

(e.g., I'm thinking of the problems that Patrick Cassidy had experienced 
with SUMO & Protege 2
where he had to define a number of meta classes which made the resulting 
ontology OWL-Full)    (06)

- PSL & application-specific views of what is a process    (07)

Depending on the level of abstraction and the scope of factors considered,
we can have multiple process models of the same conceptual "process" 
In engineering, these variations are often due to domain-specific 
(e.g., thermal, mechanical, data processing, ...) about the same "thing"
(e.g., a spacecraft, a car, a toaster oven, apples & oranges,....)    (08)

To retain the flexibility of using PSL according to considerations of 
abstraction, scope, purpose, domain, ....
I reckon that the applicaiton-specific ontology needs to be mapped onto 
the PSL ontology according to a reified context
that describes the choices made for abstraction, scope, purpose and domain.    (09)

I'm not sure how to do this in practice however and if Conrad has ideas 
on this, I would certainly like to hear what he has to say on this issue.    (010)

-- Nicolas.    (011)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>