Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

At 9:46 PM -0500 3/13/08, John F. Sowa wrote:

> Dear Matthew,
>
> JFS>> I very, very, very strongly doubt that the choice of a 3D
> vs
>  >> 4D upper ontology would have the slightest effect on
> the design
>  >> of a database for airline schedules, train schedules,
> and many
>  >> similar applications.
>
> MW> It is precisely when you deal with times and places
> (individuals
>  > in general) that you get distinctly different results. I
> have not
>  > modelled the specific examples above, but I have done
> similar
>  > things that are Oil Industry related.
>
> I agree that the interpretation of what a flight "really" is
> would
> be different in a 4D or a 3D ontology, but a low-level fact such
> as the following would not change:
>
>     Flight:  American Airlines fl 2916 (on Boeing
> 767-300)
>     Depart:  11:30 AM, San Francisco, CA
> (SFO)
>     Arrive:  07:59
> PM, New York, NY (JFK)

Probably not, because both sides would agree this is an event-like thing that can have temporal parts.

> The airlines have been storing such information in their databases
> for over 40 years without having a detailed ontology about the
> nature
> of places, times, things, and events.  A knowledge base can
> interpret
> that data with 4D axioms while sending and receiving messages
> about
> the data to and from knowledge bases and data bases with very
> different upper-level axioms or no such axioms at all.
>
> MW> However, this did remind me of what I thought could be
> shared
>  > in lower level modules, and that is the sort of stuff that
> says
>  > things like "centrifugal pumps have impellers as
> parts". These
>  > kinds of statements at a class level I think it may be
> possible
>  > to merge with either a 3D or 4D foundation. When you merge
> it
>  > with a 3D foundation you allow classes to change their
> membership
>  > over time, when you merge it with 4D ontollogies they
> become
>  > extensional.
>
> I agree.  Note that AA 2916 uses a B767-300 airplane, but
> nothing
> in that data depends on the nature of any airplane of any
> kind.

Well, one framework might express this by saying that the relevant temporal part of the airplane is part of the flight. The other framework would find this incoherent. An ontology has to choose some way to express this.

> The only relevant information about the
> type B767-300 is the
> number of parts of type Seat and their locations in the
> aircraft.

For the passengers and booking agents, yes; but for scheduling maintenance other things, including the history of this particular airplane, become highly relevant. And for the pilots to submit a flight plan before take-off, something has to do a lot of reasoning about liquids and windspeeds and rates of consumption.

> Two computers can interoperate on airline
> reservations if they
> agree on that level.  Their upper ontologies are irrelevant.
>
> MW> It is not clear to me for how much stuff this would work,
> but
>  > I do think it is worth pursuing to see where the boundaries
> lie.
>
> My claim is that interoperability is always at the message level
> for agents of any kind -- computer or human.  There is no
> need
> to align their global ontologies.

The distinction between sharing data and sharing ontologies isn't clear-cut. But I agree, this notion of keeping ontologies local is attractive. Either way, though, there has to be some kind of global agreement on how to format the shared information. Whether one calls this 'ontology' or not isn't too important, seems to me.

Pat

> If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see
> it.
>
> John
>
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)