Peter,
My emphasis regarding the Common Foundation Ontology was on
**accurate**.
I think that fascinating things can come from the collective wisdom
and contributions of many people, and I expect that over time the
coordination of multiple independently and uncoordinated ontologies
might be achieved to a certain extent by evolutionary consensus
accelerated by statistical analysis and data mining. But the end
result of that will almost certainly look like a human language, but
with a higher degree of ambiguity and synonymy. Human language took
thousands of years to evolve, and I imagine that with the internet it
will go faster, but the end result will be the same: people will be
using the same terms to refer to different concepts and multiple terms
to refer to the same concept. We already have some wonderful human
languages, and I don't feel any need for another. What we *can* use is
a computer language with the expressivity of a human language, but
which has a core of widely (not necessarily universally) agreed-on
defining concepts so that independently developed ontologies, using the
same core for their specification of meanings, can exchange definitions
and have a far better chance (not perfect) of drawing the same
conclusions from the same data. (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Peter F Brown
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:33 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
>
> Pat:
> I think you're right, although this does raise the question that's
> covered in Jeff Pollock's slide deck (referenced by Peter Yim on the
> Summit mailing list[1]): ontologies can be mob-driven, automatically
> generated, peer-reviewed or mandated in a top-down manner - are they
> going to grow organically and, if so, what's the "DNA" that's
enabling
> that, or are they going to be built synthetically, by order or
recipe?
>
> The sort of project you talk about could well be the sort of
> thing that
> could attract research funding through the EU's research
> programme, and
> there are people this side of the pond who would be interested in
> pursuing this, I'm sure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/2007/Pollock.SDForum.Ont
> ology-vs-F
> olksonomy.small.ppt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy,
> Patrick J.
> Sent: 19 March 2007 22:01
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
>
> Two comments in response to Peter Brown's reply:
> (interspersed)
>
> [Peter Brown]
> >
> > -1, except for the word "comprehensibility" (as long as you
> > include non
> > philosophers, ontologists, etc in that target audience).
> >
> > Engineering-led projects without architects may perform great on
> their
> > own, but they often suck when it comes to being understood by
anyone
> > other than the original designers or fitting in with anything else.
> An
> > ontology development without any desire for, or perspective
towards,
> > interoperability - with anyone beyond their own territory -
> > is likely to
> > be abstract, academic, hot-air: you may as well just hand
everything
> > back to the programmers of old and let them grok everything using
> > variables in their preferred programming language...
> >
> [PC]
> Interoperability creates its own additional imperatives, yes. I am
> convinced that **accurate** interoperability (getting the same
> inferences from the same data) requires use of a common foundation
> ontology - and the 'foundation ontology' is only the set of ontology
> elements (types, relations, axioms) required to permit the needed
> specification of the meanings of the domain elements that people will
> wish to formalize, in FOL at a minimum. I call that the 'Conceptual
> Defining Vocabulary". I don't know what size foundation ontology
will
> be necessary and sufficient, but suspect that it will be in the
> 5000-10000 concept range. I'm trying some experiments to
> discover what
> that will be. I think that such a foundation ontology is unlikely to
> be adopted widely until someone with a compelling application makes
> their foundation ontology available, in a form that's easier to learn
> than Cyc or the Java programming language. Or alternatively, some
> funding agency actually funds the development of such an ontology by
a
> large collaborative effort, with interfaces and applications ($10-20
> million over 2-3 years I expect). I suspect that many of us may be
> sufficiently exhausted by the debates to be ready for that.
>
> [Peter Brown]
> > I'm not convinced there is yet even a partial reply to my
> > original post
> > starting this thread:
> >
> > " My frustration with many of the threads on this list (and the
> Summit
> > list - although I admit that I'm no longer sure what goes where...)
> is
> > that there seems to be a lot of discussion over detail - of
> > how to model
> > this, or how to present that - and not enough to the bigger
> pictures:
> > who should be involved in ontology development? What
> > qualifies them and
> > how can you judge? How do you start to develop an ontology?
> > Should you?
> > How do you introduce quality control? Who decides? Where's the
> process
> > when you need one?"
> >
> > Any answers on *these* questions? ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> [PC] Does anyone think we need a "Institute of Ontological
> Engineering"
> that awards licenses after a qualifying exam?? Should we conjure up
> such an exam? Perhaps we can have grades: apprentice, journeyman,
> Master?
>
> More immediately, would it be possible to have a reviewed journal of
> ontological engineering that is freely available on the
> internet? . .
> . So we can accelerate the process of coalescing as a scientific
> discipline? I can't afford the existing print journals.
>
> Pat
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hayes
> > Sent: 19 March 2007 21:04
> > To: Cassidy, Patrick J.
> > Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
> >
> > >My advice is to boldly go and do what makes sense in your
> domain....
>
> > >It is unlikely you will run into
> > >logical contradictions, and in engineering the information
> > >infrastructure, aesthetics should take a second place to
> > >comprehensibility and efficiency.
> >
> > +1. Should be written in pokerwork and hung over the entry door of
> > every Ontology Engineering Laboratory :-)
> >
> > Pat Hayes
> > --
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> Patrick Cassidy
> CNTR-MITRE
> 260 Industrial Way West
> Eatontown NJ 07724
> Eatontown: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> 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 Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> 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 Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: 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 Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|