I agree with Adam that the existing ontologies of SUMO and OpenCyc may
already have in them the necessary set of defining concepts. What I
think still needs to be demonstrated (experimentally) is that some
subset of all of those concepts can be used in the recursive-definition
manner I described, and if so I think that will lend some clarity to
the question of where are the *boundaries* of the minimum foundation
ontology that we all need to agree on to get **accurate** semantic
interoperability. Since this is a major effort in itself, and
following on from the earlier COSMO effort, I have not restricted
myself to concepts from just one ontology, but am using the SUMO and
the OpenCyc, and BFO, and will add in anything anyone thinks is needed
and not present. In this inclusive project, if different people want
different representations that have the same logically consistent
meaning, they can both be included with translations. The only valid
reason I can see for objecting to inclusion of something is if it is
logically inconsistent with existing structures; at that point some
discussion will be needed as to whether we can agree on one choice, or
whether it will be necessary to choose one as the default, though both
are included, with the non-default segregated in a separate
'context/microtheory'. We can burn that bridge when we come to it. (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
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
> Adam Pease
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:40 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
>
> Folks,
> For what it's worth, this is an old debate and I thank Pat for
> framing this as an issue that deserves experiment and not
> debate. SUMO
> has been evolving to integrate concepts in a common ontology
> as needed
> over about 5 years now. Cycorp has been doing the same for
> much longer
> (protestations about microtheories notwithstanding since the
> very large
> BaseKB is monolithic). While some folks want to keep
> claiming a common
> ontology is somehow impossible, some of us having been doing the
> "impossible" for years. If it's really impossible, it should
> be easy to
> give a concrete, fully axiomatized example of irresolvable
> incompatibility (not English text or hand-waving, but a real
> formalized
> example). No one has yet done so.
>
> Adam
>
>
> Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
> > Chris, John, et al:
> > I think that a perfectly feasible "common basis" for
> > interoperability and integration of multiple ontologies is
> a foundation
> > ontology structured as a "conceptual defining vocabulary"
> that contains
> > all the concepts that are necessary and sufficient to specify the
> > meanings of any other more specialized concepts, using subclasses,
> > relations, functions, and axioms all of whose constant
> terms are either
> > (1) contained in the foundation ontology or (2) themselves
> specifiable
> > (recursively, if necessary) by terms in the foundation
> ontology. The
> > foundation will of course be expandable to include any primitive
> > concept representations that are found to be needed as new
> specialized
> > terms have their meanings specified using the foundation
> ontology (and
> > its extensions specified recursively by it). It should be
> possible to
> > include anything that anyone wants in it - no need for police here.
> > Whether it will be necessary to include logically
> inconsistent elements
> > in the foundation ontology is not clear yet; if so, a sequestering
> > mechanism would be needed to be clear what the consequence is of
> > adopting a representation inconsistent with the default (defined
by
> > majority vote for those who couldn't care less about the
> finer points
> > of the standard). Naturally, different contexts and belief systems
> > need to be able to be represented, in their own contexts.
> >
> > It is unlikely that any standard of any kind whatsoever would be
> > accepted by "everyone" but that is not necessary. To have
> an effective
> > standard for information interchange, it is only necessary to have
a
> > large enough user base so that third party vendors can make money
> > building interfaces to make using it easy, and building
applications
> > that illustrate the utility of the standard.
> >
> > The feasibility is strongly suggested by the fact that such
> a principle
> > has already been used for over twenty years by some
> dictionary vendors,
> > who use a controlled "defining vocabulary" with which to
> define all the
> > words (ca 100,000) in their dictionaries. Linguistic definitions
of
> > specialized terms will often use words not in the base 2000-word
> > defining vocabulary, but the undefined words can themselves
> be defined
> > by the base defining vocabulary. I did a test using the Longman's
> > defining vocabulary and defined 500 words (including 'DNA')
> not in the
> > base vocabulary and found that all of the definitions could
> be grounded
> > (recursively, as explained) on the base defining
> vocabulary, with the
> > need to add only two new words to the defining vocabulary itself
> > ('dimension' and 'participant'). A simple utility that
> will allow you
> > to test a definition against either the base controlled vocabulary
> > (baseCV) or the supplemented vocabulary containing additional words
> > defined with respect to the baseCV can be downloaded at:
> >
> >
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/reference/Controll
> edVocabul
> > ary/checkdefs.zip
> >
> > Since the words serve as labels for concepts, it is reasonable to
> > expect that a similar process will allow identification of a core
of
> > foundation (primitive) concepts whose meanings are specified in
> > relation to each other in a foundation ontology, and to use that
> > foundation ontology to specify the meanings of more specialized
> > concepts. The size of such a "conceptual defining
> vocabulary" is not
> > known; I expect it to be at least 4000 concepts, and perhaps 6 to
10
> > thousand. It's a question for experiment, not debate.
> >
> > This specific use of a foundation ontology has yet to be proven
> > feasible, and it is one of the tasks I hope to be able to
> spend time on
> > in the near future. I want to have the foundation ontology aligned
> > with the linguistic defining vocabulary so that definitions
> in ordinary
> > English will be automatically translatable into the ontological
> > specification. I have expanded the COSMO ontology from the
> > ONTACWG/COSMO effort, and created a merged foundation
> ontology from the
> > most basic elements of OpenCyc and SUMO and BFO and added in a few
> > other concept representations, but it is still at an early stage.
> > There are about 3000 classes and 300 relations, and it is
> currently in
> > OWL. The definitive version will have to be in a more
> expressive FOL
> > language, possibly KIF, when properly developed. The current OWL
> > version is available in the folder:
> >
> >
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/reference/COSMO-ontology/ (04)
> >
> > The ontology is undergoing constant revision and the version number
> > will be part of the file name.
> >
> > I will post a more detailed description of the project to
> the ontolog
> > and ONTACWG lists within the week. Anyone who has any
> opinions on the
> > topic is encouraged to make constructive suggestions, about
> structure
> > or methodology. A project like this is more likely to succeed if
it
> > has multiple participants with different needs and views.
> It may never
> > succeed if not, at some point, funded adequately to permit
> serious time
> > from many participants.
> >
> > As Chris says, finding the common basis ontology is a
> really difficult
> > problem, but one that I think should be given a serious try before
> > anyone claims that it is not possible. One also needs to
> distinguish
> > technical adequacy from social acceptability - two different
issues,
> > both important.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > CNTR-MITRE
> > 260 Industrial Way West
> > Eatontown NJ 07724
> > Eatontown: 732-578-6340
> > Cell: 908-565-4053
> > pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >> Christopher Menzel
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:34 PM
> >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Subject: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> >>
> >> On May 2, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> I attended a presentation on the use of ontologies at NASA and
the
> >
> >>> speaker took great pains to point out that a single
> >> ontology (well,
> >>> multiple ontologies but with mappings to a single master
ontology)
> >
> >>> was a prerequisite to success. When I asked if it wasn't
> possible
> >>> to have mappings between multiple ontologies that did not
> share a
> >>> common basis, he said that was possible, but that it was a
> >>> difficult problem.
> >> Holy smoke! The last 20 years would suggest it's the other way
> >> round: It is (perhaps) possible to have a common basis
> for mapping
> >> between multiple ontologies, but it is a (really) difficult
> >> problem!
> >> What did this guy have in mind as a "common basis"? If all the
> >> speaker meant was some sort of overarching reference model
> in well-
> >> circumscribed domain, then ok. But it sounds like he or she had
> >> something more comprehensive in mind.
> >>
> >> -chris
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|