Adam, (01)
Adam Pease wrote: (02)
>Hi Chris,
> Many thanks. I was really addressing a point that you weren't
>making, but which is all too common.
> I'm sympathetic to using SUMO for semantic interoperability. When
>I've done projects in that area, it has worked well. At the risk of
>stating the obvious, the advantage, at least in theory, of a common
>model over a federated approach is that one has mappings linear in the
>number of products needing integration, rather than potentially N^2.
>
>
>
I am glad you mentioned the "potentially N^2" issue. I have seen that
claim on a number of occassions but never with what I considered a
convincing explanation of why it must be so. (03)
For example, assume that I have terms A, B, and C, all of which I wish
to say represent the same subject. (04)
While I agree that it is possible to say A = B, A = C, B = C, ....,
isn't that an implementation choice? (05)
In other words, if I have the mapping A = B and then later add B = C, do
I really need A = C? The effect of the first two mappings is sufficient
to reach the desired result. (06)
Well, it should be noted that relying upon separate mappings does result
in a problem Steve Newcomb has faced with his topic map implementation,
that is how to determine when "all" the mappings have been performed. (07)
Ah, or is the N^2 claim based on a requirement that in order to apply
whatever inferences are available at A to C, a direct mapping is
required? Still, that seems to be an implementation question and not one
of the actual mapping. (08)
That is a particular methodology of mapping is being presumed. I would
assume once the mapping is complete, then the outcomes of inferencing
will be the same. Yes? (09)
I have usually encountered the N^2 comment when a particular vocabulary
is being advocated. Noting that an implied mapping is being peformed
even by those who advocate a particular vocabulary, but that the implied
mapping is not (usually) available for others to inspect or use. (The
same can be the result using topic maps. There is no requirement that a
mapping in an implementation, which may be commercial intellectual
property, be disclosed. For the most part, I think greater disclosure
can potentially lead to more interoperability. But, there are tradeoffs
and reasonable people will draw the line on disclosure at different
places.) (010)
Hope you are having a great day! (011)
Patrick (012)
>Adam
>
>Christopher Menzel wrote:
>
>
>>On May 2, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Adam Pease wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>Rather than just imagining some fatal flaw exists, I think it's
>>>incumbent on those who claim a common upper ontology is impossible to
>>>give at least one example, as a logical proof, of such a flaw.
>>>
>>>
>>I agree with that, Adam. My own expression of skepticism in an earlier
>>post was not rooted in the idea that there is a fatal flaw in the idea
>>of a reasonably comprehensive upper ontology. To the contrary, I don't
>>see any reason at all why there couldn't be one; indeed it seems clear
>>that there already are several candidates. I am simply skeptical of two
>>things: (1) Whether there is any coherent sense in which such an on
>>ontology could ever function as any sort of "medium" for supporting
>>general interoperability (which is what the person from NASA seemed to
>>be advocating) and (2) even if the answer to (1) is "yes", I am
>>skeptical of whether such an approach would have any advantage over a
>>straightforward "federated" approach on which distinct ontologies are
>>integrated in a more piecemeal fashion; I am, that is, skeptical of the
>>extent to which an upper ontology is needed to *support* interoperability.
>>
>>That said, having in fact authored a small piece of the SUMO myself, as
>>you well know :-) , I am *not* of the opinion that the construction of
>>these comprehensive upper ontologies is wasted effort. For several of
>>the existing candidates, SUMO in particular, offer very nice modular
>>axiomatizations of a wide variety of conceptual and empirical domains,
>>from class theory to time to material objects. Even if a comprehensive
>>upper ontology as a whole might not be particularly useful for
>>interoperability, many of its various pieces could definitely serve as
>>the axiomatic underpinnings of a variety of more specialized
>>ontologies. So I'm all for continuing their developments.
>>
>>-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
>
>
>
>
>
> (013)
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 (014)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|