ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:19:32 -0400
Message-id: <48AD6B64.7020800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sounds like a plan.
Where do these fit in http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/ontology/
To my untrained eye, they seem to address a lot of the items raised in 
your point 4.    (01)

Ron    (02)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Pat,
>
> If you like the term 'foundation ontology', I won't complain.  But
> please note that the method of the Longman dictionary is totally
> different from anything that we have been calling an ontology.  Their
> defining vocabulary, as they say in the introduction, is intended for
> people who are learning English as a second language.  It is not an
> ontology like Cyc, SUMO, BFO, Dolce, etc.
>
> The people who use the Longman Learners' Dictionary have an enormous
> amount of background knowledge beyond any computer system today.
> They are able to use that knowledge to interpret the very incomplete
> so-called definitions.  That may be useful for people, but it's not
> an ontology that could be used for deductive reasoning by computers.
>
> On the other hand, those very incomplete definitions are not bad for
> specifying an incomplete type hierarchy, somewhat along the lines of
> WordNet.  Something at that level can be extremely valuable, as the
> many applications of WordNet have demonstrated.  In fact, it could
> also be useful as a basis for a *lightweight* low-cost foundation.
>
> Following is my recommendation for a foundation ontology (FO).
> I'm sending this note to both ontolog-forum and the SUO mailing
> list, because something along these lines could be appropriate
> for an IEEE standard:
>
>   1. A lightweight, low-cost foundation, an initial version of which
>      could be developed relatively quickly without a large investment
>      of cash, but which could evolve into something much more complete.
>
>   2. The initial components of the FO would take advantage of resources
>      that have proved to be successful in practical applications.  But
>      the principles should also have a sound logical basis to enable
>      a smooth evolution and transition toward a more complete system.
>
>   3. A simple, but widely used resource is WordNet.  Its advantage is
>      wide coverage, and its lack of detailed axioms enables it to be
>      adapted to multiple purposes without creating contradictions.
>      However, many aspects of WordNet, such as its top-level categories,
>      would require revisions or replacement before being adopted and
>      adapted into the FO type hierarchy.  Many other resources could
>      also be added, but with considerable revisions to avoid conflicts.
>      The FO hierarchy would initially have very few axioms, of which
>      the primary ones would be the subtype/supertype relations.
>
>   4. Other important resources are the standards for dates, times,
>      geographical locations, units of measurement, monetary units,
>      chemical elements and compounds, etc.  The terminology and the
>      mathematical relations among terms should be related to the FO
>      hierarchy and made available for all applications.
>
>   5. Organizations for the sciences, engineering, law, medicine,
>      businesses, governments, agriculture, etc., have established
>      standardized terminology with standard definitions and detailed
>      specifications.  These terms should be related to the basic
>      FO hierarchy, but a suitable naming scheme is necessary to
>      distinguish homonyms used in different standards and revisions.
>
>   6. The development of the FO should be coordinated with existing
>      bodies such as ISO, W3C, and various governmental and non-
>      governmental organizations.  The naming scheme should enable
>      different bodies to control their own terminology while relating
>      them to the basic FO type hierarchy.
>
> There is a lot more to be said, but I believe that something along
> these lines would be (a) relatively inexpensive to get started,
> (b) upward compatible with existing practices, (c) immediately useful
> for practical applications, and (d) compatible with both formal
> deductive systems and much more informal tools used for information
> classification and retrieval.
>
> If we do a good job, it could become an IEEE standard.
>
> John Sowa
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
>
>       (03)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (04)

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