[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re:ANN: GoodRelations

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:08:30 -0400
Message-id: <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C9019078F0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat,    (01)

I've seen the differce between "Lightweight" versus 'heavyweight" in ontology 
described as the use of axioms.  For exaple "Heavyweight Ontology Engineering" 
by   Frédéric FURST and  Francky TRICHET (Lecture notes in computer science ) 
say :      (02)

"An heavyweight ontology is a lightweight ontology (i.e. an ontology simply 
based on a hierarchy of concepts and a hierarchy of relations) enriched with 
axioms used to fix the semantic interpretation of concepts and relations. "    (03)

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D. 
EM&I    (04)

________________________________    (05)

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Patrick Cassidy
Sent: Wed 8/20/2008 2:05 PM
To: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re:ANN: 
GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]    (06)

Toby:    (07)

   Concerning two of your points:    (08)

(1)     "Lightweight" versus 'heavyweight" (whatever that means in ontology):   
The "conceptual defining vocabulary" approach to finding a common foundation 
ontology aims to identify the *minimum* set of concepts that will be adequate 
to specify the meanings of all specialized concepts, as combinations of the 
basic concepts.  So it will be as small as possible (but, as Einstein warned, 
no smaller).    (09)

(2)    I don't think that anyone on this list (well, maybe one) thinks there is 
a "one true" way to represent the world.  One of the main characteristics of 
the ontology development project I am suggesting is that it explicitly allow 
multiple alternative (but logically compatible) ways to represent concepts, so 
that all different viewpoints can be accommodated.    (010)

   One point your CEO made is entirely valid: the foundation ontology that 
enables interoperability must be fully open, but the local applications using 
it can be proprietary and secret.    (011)

Pat    (012)

Patrick Cassidy    (013)

MICRA, Inc.    (014)

908-561-3416    (015)

cell: 908-565-4053    (016)

cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (017)

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Toby Considine
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:38 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN: 
GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]    (018)

If Cyc is a valuable resource, it is as something to be mined lighter weight 
and eventually more successful project. Much of this thread sounds an awful lot 
like the over-heavy but oh so passionately supported heavy-weight standards 
that GM was working on in the 70's and 80's. AFAIK, the only shard remaining is 
LDAP, which was developed by mining by a small results-oriented group. I am 
also reminded of the greater usability of GBXML and how strongly the AECXML 
folks argued againt it.    (019)

Last month, I spent a holiday weekend with several CEOs who could not imagine 
what I was up to. Finally one got it, and explained to the others:     (020)

"Ontology is always a value proposition, how a company makes money. Each 
company, and perhaps each sales professional must be able to define his own 
ontology and explain it to his customers. We need semantic allignment to create 
a common basis for discussing value. If it is a good semantic set, then the 
ontologies that each sales director creates will be better, better to produce 
sales differentiation, and better to produce true long term value for the 
company.     (021)

A general purpose ontology gives us a framework do develop and discuss our own 
value propositions. But those value propositions, and their underlying 
ontologies must remain proprietary, or lese every company is just building to 
the lowest common denominator, and innovation and value creation end"    (022)

I recognize that he was using the words somewhat differently than this group 
does, but I cannot discard his formulation. If you want the large players, 
mentioned above, to fund these efforts, I suspect that the conversation will 
have to sound more like his, and less filled with the passion for the one 
correct answer I read in this thread.    (023)

"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so 
regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened 
for us." -- Alexander Graham Bell
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC http://www.oasis-open.org <http://www.oasis-open.org/>  
Phone: (919)619-2104
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com <http://www.newdaedalus.com/>     (024)


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)

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