Lars and Rich, (01)
There is a promising research dealing with personal ontologies, named a PIM
Ontology for the Semantic Desktop, which might be of use for your
discussion,
http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/2006/01-pimo-report/pimOntologyLanguageReport.html. (02)
Below is the abstract:
''The Semantic Desktop needs a well-thought use of ontologies and ontology
languages. Existing ontology languages like RDF/S, OWL, SKOS and Topic Maps
are very well suited for certain application areas, but do not fulfill some
of the requirements given on the Semantic Desktop. In this report, a new
ontology language, extending RDF/S, is proposed, the PIMO ontology language,
which addresses the requirements of the Semantic Desktop and uses existing
solutions as an inspiration to build a suitable solution. The language
contains a core upper ontology, defining basic classes for things, concepts,
resources, persons, etc. and also stops at these basic entities. Extending
the ontology definitions of classes and relations is possible by PIMO-domain
ontologies. The core application area of the PIMO-language is to allow
individual persons to express their own mental models in a structured way,
the different mental models can then be integrated based on matching
algorithms or on domain ontologies. Based on the core upper ontology
elements, each user can extend his personal mental model in an open manner. (03)
Accompanying to the description of the ontology is a RDF/S version of the
ontology language, created using the popular Protégé tool. An example of the
mental model of a user is given, the fictional user "Paul" is further
described. With the gnowsis-beta open source software, an implementation
based on the PIMO language exists, that allows validating ontology files. A
web-service for that will be provided soon. The ontology language, this
document, the open-source reference implementation and the example documents
can provide a stable basis for discussions on this topic and allow you to
extend your own work.'' (04)
Azamat (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] just another thought regarding: Five
challengesfor"semantics" beyond Knowledge Representation (06)
> Lars Ludwig wrote:
> =============== ================== ================== ===========
> Well, I humbly disagree: on the contrary. Let's twist thoughts a bit: A
> shared (ontology) system can be described as being personal to each
> participant. Ergo: All shared systems are personal systems. Ergo: You
> cannot
> claim that all PIMs will fail. On the contrary, any shared systems not
> PIMs
> have to fail, as they cannot be shared. If we start seeing semantic
> personal
> knowledge management systems as personal proxies of knowledge artifacts
> capable of being combined into 'shared' systems and thus a basis of
> 'semantic' communication, there won't be any contradiction left. One could
> even maintain: A (shared) ontology management system not mapping the
> personal ontology of each participant to the resulting shared ontology
> generates the illusion of a shared ontology where actually only multiple
> personal mappings to a publicly agreed-upon ontology exist. Let's call
> this
> the 'shared ontology'-illusion. In other words, why not express personal
> ontologies before actually sharing them. Shared ontologies will thus
> become
> what they are: fuzzy, where fuzziness is an important quality to know
> about
> and not to keep silent about.
>
> :-) Lars
> =============== ================== ================== ===========
>
> While it's important to capture enterprise information in a consistent way
> for may enterprises, it's also necessary for individuals to experiment
> with
> personal extensions to the standard representation so that the enterprise
> ontology can be improved over time. So I think the answer is that each
> user
> must have the ability to make changes to her personal implementation of
> the
> enterprise ontology, while practicing the standard in most details. So
> both
> kinds are needed - a refereed enterprise standard ontology and a personal
> projection of that ontology that can be edited by the individual.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|