ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:18:35 -0000
Message-id: <808637A57BC3454FA660801A3995FA8F06A2D18C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Pat,    (01)

> Matthew,
>    These discussions cannot make any progress unless we discuss
> "incompatibilities" in very specific logical terms.  Could 
> you provide us
> with examples of incompatible representations of people?  We 
> have already
> discussed 3D/4D and I will have more to say about that when I 
> can get more
> than a few free minutes - still very much tied up in a deadline for a
> project.  Other than that, what kind of incompatibilities 
> have you seen?    (02)

MW: 3D/4D was what I had in mind specifically, the other sorts of
things I have seen I would call confusions or errors. So for example,
there are ontologies where you will find employee as a subtype of
person, and others that understand it is not.    (03)

>   Just to be more specific - I have seen databases that have 
> very different
> sets of attributes for people.  But so far none seem 
> incompatible with the
> others, they just talk about different aspects of the same 
> identical type of
> entity.      (04)

MW: I agree, attributes are usually additive. The biggest problem
comes when the same attribute is represented in a different way.    (05)

> It's a bit of work to try to logically specify all 
> of these, but
> that doesn't mean they are incompatible.    (06)

MW: Indeed.
> 
> 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: Sunday, March 16, 2008 6:52 PM
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > communication
> > 
> > Dear Pat,
> > 
> > I think you misunderstand. When you take several incompatible
> > ontologies
> > that include upper ontologies and try to integrate them, 
> the objects in
> > the upper ontologies are not really that important, since you are
> > going to map them into you preferred upper ontology.
> > 
> > Everyone already does have their own incompatible 
> definitions of person
> > and place etc. The question I was trying to address is what 
> you have to
> > do when you are mapping these into an integrating ontology.
> > 
> > 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/
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf 
> Of Patrick
> > > Cassidy
> > > Sent: 16 March 2008 14:03
> > > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > > communication
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't think you need to worry about the upper ontology
> > > for integration?
> > >
> > > Then everyone will have their own (potentially incompatible)
> > > meanings for
> > > person, place, organization, time, object, substance,
> > > artifact (manufactured
> > > object), event (happening), group, path,
> > > properties(attributes/relations),
> > > organism, reasoning, emotion, gravity, agents, goals,
> > > obligations, exchange,
> > > money, liquid flow, and a few other things that I don't think
> > > most systems
> > > will want to do without.  For manufacturing you might 
> throw out all
> > of
> > > biology but you have a lot left over.  Do you think that 
> mapping to
> > > separately developed ontologies is a straightforward task?
> > >
> > > Are you serious?
> > >
> > > 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: Sunday, March 16, 2008 4:25 AM
> > > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > > > communication
> > > >
> > > > Dear John,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > MW> The key point about messages, is that if they all conform
> > > > >  > to a common ontology, mapping in and out at the system
> > > interface.
> > > > >  > This introduces consistency and improves maintainability of
> > the
> > > > >  > interfaces.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but that's a very big 'if'.  Any new system must support
> > > > > a smooth transition from and coexistence with legacy systems,
> > > > > future revisions and extensions to the new system, eventual
> > > > > replacements when it becomes a legacy system, and 
> communication
> > > > > with other systems designed for other purposes by people who,
> > > > > rightly or wrongly, think they have a need for something else.
> > > >
> > > > MW: You are missing the point. When you develop your interfaces
> > > > with a single ontology, then for each system you have only one
> > > > ontology to integrate with, rather than one per system that you
> > > > interface to. Also it is the same ontology you integrate to for
> > > > all systems, and that is another benefit.
> > > > >
> > > > > JFS>> I suspect that the upper levels of any globally 
> consistent
> > > > >  >> ontology would probably be highly abstract and not easily
> > > > >  >> translatable to colloquial NL statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW> Well if you think that saying things can be classified,
> > > > >  > classes can have subtypes, and individuals can 
> have parts is
> > > > >  > abstract, then yes, but these do not seem very abstract
> > > > >  > statements to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The is-a operator, by itself, can be stated in two simple
> > > > > English words.  But the types at the upper levels may become
> > > > > very abstract and sophisticated.
> > > >
> > > > MW: I agree that there are some abstract concepts. But they are
> > > > relatively few (tens rather than hundreds in an ontology of
> > > > tens of thousands). They should only be included when they
> > > > bear characteristic and axioms that are hence stored in 
> one place
> > > > rather than repeated in several. Of course those that are
> > > > dealing with things at a lower level of abstraction do not even
> > > > need to be aware of these. Most people are happy when they can
> > > > see that the next immediate supertype is appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, consider some of the sophisticated notions in
> > > > > relativity and quantum mechanics, which must be accommodated
> > > > > by any truly global ontology.  Trying to incorporate such
> > > > > notions along with all the more familiar notions in a complete
> > > > > and consistent way is what Whitehead was trying to do.  That's
> > > > > why his system is still incomplete.
> > > >
> > > > MW: I would not see this as upper ontology stuff at all. This is
> > > > the stuff of detail at a very low level of reality. The relevant
> > > > upper ontology stuff for this is the recgnition of levels of
> > > > reality and the very general ideas of individuals that would
> > > > include things like ourselves and sub-atomic particles.
> > > > >
> > > > > JFS>> That is one reason why I would throw away the 
> upper levels
> > > > >  >> of most terminologies, including WordNet.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW> I wish you would stop saying this. The real problem is
> > > > >  > people putting the wrong things in upper 
> ontologies, not there
> > > > >  > being something wrong with them per se.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not view WordNet and various terminologies as ontologies,
> > > > > but rather as lexicons that are used to link NLs to formal
> > > > > ontologies.  When I say "throw away" the upper levels of such
> > > > > systems, I mean that their function at the interface between
> > > > > NLs and formal ontologies does not require and is, in fact,
> > > > > incompatible with their having an upper level of their own.
> > > >
> > > > MW: OK. So what you are saying is that when you are integrating
> > > > some external ontology with yours, you do not need to worry
> > > > about its upper ontology. That I would agree with.
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> > > > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)




_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>