Matthew,
There are some points I think are worth pursuing: (01)
[[[1]]]
[PC] > > ** The relevant question is, when a group of people who are
> > determined to
> > find a common model of *basic* concepts get together, what
> > kinds of issues
> > remain that cannot be resolved by sincere efforts to find ways to
> > accommodate the needs of all of them? **
>
[MW] > MW: My experience again is that whatever you choose, there will
> be some people who will find it unpalatable enough to walk away.
> I would certainly not waste my time with anything 3D as an example,
> and there are others who would not countenance 4D. (02)
In your experience, what fraction many people who actually participated
with significant time in development of a foundation ontology walked away
and hose not to use it? Were they paid for their participation? From all
our previous experience we know now that process is critically important,
and there are processes that have not been tried. As I said, we don't need
universal agreement, we only need a critical mass of users to form a
community that can share their experiences and attract third-party
developers of helpful utilities. (03)
[[[2]]]
[PC] > > We know how to resolve terminology
> > clashes - use different names or different namespaces for the
> > different concepts.
>
> MW: That is not true for 3D/4D, it is about what sorts of things
> physical objects (in particular) are. For a 4-dimensionalist they
> are extended in time and have temporal parts, for a 3 Dimensionalist
> they wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
> parts. The terminology is frankly irrelevant, it is the ideas that
> are diametrically opposed. (04)
As I have mentioned before, I believe that 3D and 4D are different and
compatible views of the same entities. We can use different words to
describe our views, but the important question for the machines is whether
the different views lead to *representations* that are logically
inconsistent. We don't need to agree on which aspect of the entity is of
greatest importance to us - we have to agree on how to represent those
different views, optimally in a way that can be related and not be logically
inconsistent. I presented an example in a previous post in this thread of
how one 3D view can be reconciled with one 4D view. If you think there are
4d and 3D views that are logically inconsistent, please show us the axioms
that lead to inconsistency.
To say
(1) extended in time and have temporal parts or
(2) wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
parts
Is to describe two different views of the same object. The task of
ontological engineering is not to describe the ultimate structure of
reality, but to create a representation that is useful for automated
inferencing in solving practical problems. The only thing relevant is how
these views are formalized. It can be helpful for people using the ontology
to have good documentation as well - the documentation can include the
different interpretations. The issue is whether the formalizations are
inconsistent. (05)
[[[3]]]
[MW] > MW: Yes, you could put both 3D and 4D theories into some ontology
> repository, and provide a mapping between them. This is quite possible.
> But make no mistake, you now already have a lattice of theories and
> two foundation ontologies, not one. Each physical object would be
> represented twice, once as a 3D object and once as a 4D object (06)
No, you would not have two ontologies, you would have one self-consistent
ontology in which two different and compatible views are represented, with
axioms that automatically convert an assertion in one form into the
equivalent assertion in the other form. One could, of course, create
subontologies in which either of the forms is represented without the other.
But these will be logically compatible, and any time assertions in the two
subontologies need to be related, they can be converted accurately. In the
full ontology, one might very well have two different representations of the
same entity, but they would be created automatically and accurately from a
single assertion in either form (4D or 3D), and would not change the effects
of the inferencing. Fear of redundancy is one of the factors that has
inhibited creation of such an inclusive ontology. I do not believe it is a
problem, because utilities can be created to allow users to select only the
parts they need from the full ontology, and in that way the redundancy will
have no effect on performance in stand-alone applications. When the full
ontology is used to enable interoperability between two views, the
inferencing may be slower. How much slower will be discovered in practice. (07)
[[[4]]] [MW] >> MW: Just take a close look at what Pat H is saying about the
> incompatibility between 3D and 4D.
>
I did, and I was astonished to see him produce a set of assertions in which
the '=' sign is used (it appears to me) in two different senses, but is
considered identical for the purpose of inferencing. He has denied that the
meanings are different, and we will soon I expect proceed to discuss this
point further. But if that is the best argument against 3D being compatible
with 4D, I think my case is proven. (08)
Pat (09)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> communication
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> >
> > MW - one request for clarification:
> >
> > [MW] >
> > > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> > spent much of
> > > my life doing business analaysis for systems design, and reviewing
> > > data models produced by others. I am always surprised at just how
> > > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> > I have yet
> > > to see two data models of the same application look the
> > same except by
> > > cut and paste.
> > >
> >
> > I am well aware that models created in isolation from each
> > other will vary
> > widely. That is a restatement of the problem. The hypothesis of the
> > 'Conceptual Defining Vocabulary' states that it will be
> > possible to solve
> > that problem with a common ontology of agreed basic concepts
> > that are used
> > to specify the meanings of the more specialized concepts in
> > the different
> > models.
>
> MW: I agree it is possible to come up with a common ontology of
> basic concepts that can be used to integrate the diverse models
> you talk about. I have done this myself with ISO 15926. However,
> you are claiming that there is ONE such ontology which we all
> share by some sort of osmosis. The point I was trying to make
> about all the different data models is that there is not such
> ONE ontology. I beleive there are several possible ontologies with
> different ontological foundations, each of which would be quite
> capable of helping to integrate diverse other ontologies of
> whatever form.
>
> MW: Further you are claiming that there are a limited set of
> foundation objects from which all others can be defined. This
> also does not sit true with me. I have seen new primitive
> concepts arise at almost any and every level of an ontology. I
> agree that it is very useful when classes can be defined as the
> intersection of some other classes, but it doesn't actually happen
> that often for me (though I admitedly usually leave these to
> be implied, rather than making them explicit).
>
> MW: Just as a simple example, can you show how you would move
> from even a relatively general class like pump, to centrifugal
> pump? Where do you get the centrifugal from?
> >
> > ** The relevant question is, when a group of people who are
> > determined to
> > find a common model of *basic* concepts get together, what
> > kinds of issues
> > remain that cannot be resolved by sincere efforts to find ways to
> > accommodate the needs of all of them? **
>
> MW: My experience again is that whatever you choose, there will
> be some people who will find it unpalatable enough to walk away.
> I would certainly not waste my time with anything 3D as an example,
> and there are others who would not countenance 4D.
> >
> > I am very interested in finding out just what kinds of
> > residual problems
> > there really are. Thus far the examples I have seen all resolve to a
> > terminology clash - two different people want to use the same
> > term to refer
> > to concepts of different meaning. We know how to resolve terminology
> > clashes - use different names or different namespaces for the
> > different
> > concepts.
>
> MW: That is not true for 3D/4D, it is about what sorts of things
> physical objects (in particular) are. For a 4-dimensionalist they
> are extended in time and have temporal parts, for a 3 Dimensionalist
> they wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
> parts. The terminology is frankly irrelevant, it is the ideas that
> are diametrically opposed.
>
> > If it is important to relate those concepts to
> > each other, that
> > takes a bit of work to analyze the reasons for the
> > differences and find the
> > relations between the two different representations.
>
> MW: Yes, you could put both 3D and 4D theories into some ontology
> repository, and provide a mapping between them. This is quite possible.
> But make no mistake, you now already have a lattice of theories and
> two foundation ontologies, not one. Each physical object would be
> represented twice, once as a 3D object and once as a 4D object.
> >
> > If there is a case where an effort of that kind could not arrive at
> > agreement on how to include or reconcile some seemingly logically
> > incompatible representations, I would very much like to learn
> > what those
> > problems are, in detail.
>
> MW: Just take a close look at what Pat H is saying about the
> incompatibility between 3D and 4D.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MICRA, Inc.
> > 908-561-3416
> > cell: 908-565-4053
> > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:41 AM
> > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > > communication
> > >
> > > Dear John and Pat H.,
> > >
> > > > >In other words, all the axioms are at the task level, and each
> > > > >message sent between systems identifies what ontology is
> assumed.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that makes a certain sense, but Im less sanguine
> > than you are
> > > > about being able to neatly express relationships between
> > ontologies.
> > > > Not that such relations are impossible, but I think they
> > will will be
> > > > messier and more tangled, as Mala says in her recent
> > message. Which
> > > > is not necessarily a problem or something to avoid, just
> > something we
> > > > should be ready for.
> > >
> > > MW: I agree with Pat here, that just encouraging an
> > unlimited number of
> > > ontologies and saying we will map between them, is perhaps
> > where we are
> > > headed at the moment, but it is an expensive direction to
> > take. My best
> > > hope at the moment is to encourage convergence onto a limited
> number
> > > of ontologies - say 10 or so. They would have clearly stated
> > > foundations
> > > where the differences would be known and understood, and
> > mappings could
> > > be provided. I think several is good, because that provides
> > a market,
> > > which will help to drive improvement. It might also be that
> > some die,
> > > and others are born.
> > >
> > > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> > spent much of
> > > my life doing business analaysis for systems design, and reviewing
> > > data models produced by others. I am always surprised at just how
> > > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> > I have yet
> > > to see two data models of the same application look the
> > same except by
> > > cut and paste.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Matthew West
> > > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > > Registered in England and Wales
> > > Registered number: 621148
> > > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > >
> > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.shell.com
> > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|