I believe that the folks at the Lab. for Applied Ontology in Italy have
a pretty solid story w.r.t. defining context with their DOLCE ontology. (01)
http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html (02)
The "contexts" that Duane mentions below are "descriptions" (DOLCE)
that can be applied to a particular "situation" (DOLCE).
The smashing two rocks example is a "description" (DOLCE) in the sense
that Duane refers to the idea of smashing rocks.
When I pick up two rocks from the ground and actually smash them, I am
talking about a "situation" (DOLCE). (03)
Eventually, there's no silver bullet; if you really want unambiguous
context information,
it ought be spelled out in a way that is sufficiently formal and sound
to make reasoning
valuable and useful. (04)
I have looked atht he second paper Duane mentioned. It looks to me like
a very simple version of DOLCE's concepts of descriptions & situations. (05)
-- Nicolas. (06)
Duane Nickull wrote: (07)
> Bob et al:
>
> I see this as a requirement for a context ontology. There are several
> context facets that may constrain meaning.
>
> Geo-spatial
> Temporal
> Dimensional
> Gravity (perhaps a subclass of geospatial)
> Atmosphere
> personal point of view (assertion??)
> etc.
>
> Example 1 - a noise is produced when two rocks smash together on earth
> under normal atmospheric conditions, if the same event involving the
> same two instances of mineral happens in space with no gaseous
> atmosphere, actual mileage may vary.
>
> Example 2 - that wine is the best tasting. Correct should be "person
> X makes the assertion that wine is the best tasting" or "in the
> context of person x's personal view...."
>
> Example 3 - humans are mammals - in the context of 2005, this
> statement is correct (exempting those of us who develop standards
> ;-). In the context of 3 trillion years ago - not true.
>
> I found some papers on this:
> Canadian Military (I'm scared to even imagine what they are up to)
>
>http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/04/205640111babs.htm
>
>
> Ontology based context modeling
>
>http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~wangxia2/publications/ontology-based%20context%20modeling%20and%20reasoning%20using%20OWL.pdf
>
>
> (assumes it is too complex to ever be implemented)
>
> I think that the very mechanism explored by CCTs could be modified to
> build a context ontology
>
>
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your points seem to underscore effectively the diverse uses in
>> academic research and business applications of Ontology methodologies
>> and begs for further discussion of the challenges of quality metrics
>> in various domains.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some large firms, for example, are beginning to focus on Policy
>> driven ontologies ( PDO ) as an approach to evaluating application
>> interoperability as part of an architectural analysis. One of the
>> obvious drivers of PDO is external regulatory demands (SOX, Basel II,
>> HIPAA, etc.) which puts continuous pressures on Boards of Directors
>> for adapting to new contexts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your insight. How does GSX cope?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob Smith
>>
>> Tall Tree Labs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> Robert.Miller@xxxxxxx
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:09 AM
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Re: Semantics
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Schuldt writes:
>>
>> Isn't it also safe to say that any ontology must select a definition
>> for a given word and then use it consistently throughout the ontology
>> - regardless the other possible uses?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Menzel writes:
>>
>> If I want to keep using "widget" with my meaning, I can rename
>> occurrences of "widget" in O1 systematically (with "O1-widget", say)
>> and the ambiguity disappears.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris also says:
>>
>> But one of the points of building an ontology is to *fix* meaning and
>> thereby to *avoid* confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest that the point of building an ontology is to document
>> meaning and thereby enhance understanding. That the meaning of
>> words/terms/phrases may differ with context is a given. An ontology
>> should routinely include context in its architecture, such that it is
>> capable for example of documenting multiple meanings of a 'widget'
>> along with their associated contexts. Note that I do not suggest
>> that ambiguity will 'disappear'. Nor do I see that as a practical
>> goal. Since an ontology that tracks a real world will grow/morph
>> over time, meanings cannot be 'fixed'. On the other hand, inference
>> machines work pretty well when presented with fuzzy data.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bob Miller
>>
>>
>>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|