Also if you happen to have TopBraid Composer you can explore the
ontology via diagrams. It's not free though, and I should say that I
don't have any particular connection with them. However I have used it
to view the COSMO ontology and it helps get a good view of what's where.
There are also very clear definitions on the text fields defining what
each item is. (01)
Mike (02)
Patrick Cassidy wrote: (03)
>Azamat,
> The ontology in OWL format can be obtained by downloading from:
> http://www.micra.com/COSMO/
> the OWL file is 'COSMO.owl'. You should not try to view it in a browser,
>which does not interpret OWL properly, but just go to the directory and save
>the file in a local directory on your computer. Then load it into Protégé,
>which will display the top structure in the OWLclasses tab. From there you
>can drill down to see the details of the hierarchy, and what restrictions
>and relations are attached to each type. The relations can be viewed in the
>'Properties' tab.
>
> I do not have any special viewing mechanism other than to load it into
>Protégé (or you can also load it into SWOOP). Of course, you can view the
>.owl file itself in a text editor, but that will not show the hierarchy
>directly.
>
>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 Azamat
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:45 PM
>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Upper ontology content and structure
>>
>>Patrick,
>>
>>Sorry, but cant locate the main resource for the top structure of
>>COSMO. All
>>what i found is ''the most general concept representations in the COSMO
>>include the types: Object, Attribute, GenericLocation,
>>GenericSubstance,
>>GenericAgent, Role, TemporalLocation, Group, and
>>SituationProcessEventOrState.'' Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>Azamat
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
>>To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:14 PM
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Upper ontology content and structure
>>
>>
>>Azamat,
>> Regarding WordNet and ontologies:
>>
>>
>>>There is a popular benchmark, the WordNet hierarchy of things,
>>>
>>>
>>setting
>>
>>
>>>the standard of quality. However inconsistent, it gives rather clear
>>>divisions: Entity (Physical Entity, thing, object, cause, substance,
>>>
>>>
>>physical
>>
>>
>>>process; Abstract Entity, psychological feature, attribute, group,
>>>
>>>
>>relation,
>>
>>
>>>communication, quantity, set, otherworld). How the COSMO ontology
>>>differs from it in a progressive way? Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> WordNet is used a lot in Natural Language Processing, but I have not
>>heard
>>others say that it 'sets the standard of quality' for an ontology. In
>>fact,
>>there is almost universal agreement among those I know who have looked
>>at it
>>for reasoning purposes that the top levels of WordNet do **not**
>>constitute
>>a valid inheritance hierarchy that would be useful for automated
>>inferencing. It was originally built as a psycholinguistic model of
>>word
>>usage, and was not originally intended for automated inferencing or for
>>NLP,
>>though being the only free semantic network of that size it was pressed
>>into
>>use for that purpose, in spite of wide recognition of its defects.
>>
>> Nevertheless, in the current phase of the COSMO work (representing
>>words
>>in the Longman defining vocabulary), I am adding pointers to WordNet
>>synsets
>>for the elements (types and relations) being added. The WordNet has
>>over
>>100,000 synsets, so when a mapping of WordNet to a foundation ontology
>>is
>>complete, there will still be many WordNet synsets not directly
>>represented.
>>I have not yet attempted to examine the more specialized synsets of
>>WordNet,
>>but I hope that they will more accurately reflect an inheritance
>>hierarchy,
>>and if so, then the task will be to find the most specific subsumer for
>>each
>>root of a WordNet subtree that is not represented in COSMO. That is a
>>task
>>that will not be done for over a year. If it works as hoped, then we
>>would
>>have a "modified" WordNet that would function as the linguistic mapping
>>for
>>a true inheritance hierarchy.
>>
>>Whether that reorganized WordNet will prove more useful than the
>>original
>>will only be known when there have been serious attempts to compare
>>them for
>>the same applications. That may take a while, because most of the NL
>>work
>>does not attempt to represent texts with the detail of meaning that is
>>encoded in a good logic-based ontology. It will take time, even for
>>NL
>>researchers who are so inclined (very much the minority at present), to
>>figure out how to use such a resource effectively.
>>
>>But another issue should not be ignored. The foundation ontology and
>>application-oriented specialized ontologies are very different things,
>>with
>>different purposes, and at least some criteria for evaluation of one
>>type
>>will not be appropriate for the other type. The most critical function
>>for
>>a foundation ontology, in my view, is to serve the purpose of enabling
>>accurate semantic interoperability by creating accurate maps from
>>application ontologies to the foundation ontology, and via the
>>foundation
>>ontology, mappings from application ontologies (or database schemas) to
>>each
>>other. Such mappings will be much less expensive if the specialized
>>ontology or DB schema is created by use of (i.e. the terms specified as
>>combination of) the basic concept representations in the foundation
>>ontology, rather than doing it as an afterthought.
>>
>>In order to make its use as easy as possible, I am organizing the COSMO
>>to
>>be at least a representation of the concepts in the Longman defining
>>vocabulary, which has been used to define specialized terms in
>>dictionaries.
>>My working hypothesis (as I have mentioned before) is that a comparable
>>inventory of corresponding logical representations of those words will
>>function as a "conceptual defining vocabulary" - a collection of basic
>>concept representations that will be adequate building blocks to create
>>logical specifications of any specialized concept (or "thing", if one
>>doesn't believe in representing concepts) one wants to represent for an
>>application. Aiming for the defining vocabulary is a means of keeping
>>the
>>foundation ontology as small as possible, thereby making it as easy to
>>use
>>as possible.
>>Whether such a foundation ontology will have such capability is an
>>issue of
>>fact that can be resolved by experiment, not by discussion. My current
>>agenda is: (1) supplement the COSMO to include representations of all
>>words
>>in the Longman defining vocabulary (and some others that appear equally
>>basic); and (2) try to use that ontology to represent many different
>>specialized concepts, to determine whether the initial inventory needs
>>to be
>>supplemented with additional primitive concept representations, and if
>>so,
>>by how many.
>>
>>The question of how many "primitives" are needed to create the more
>>complex
>>concepts in common use is one that has been discussed for some time.
>>I
>>believe that the use of a foundation ontology as an inventory of such
>>primitives is a valid method for actually investigating this issue in
>>an
>>objective experimental manner.
>>
>>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 Azamat
>>>Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:01 PM
>>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Upper ontology content and structure
>>>
>>>On Friday, September 26, 2008 3:05 PM Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>>
>>>''However, if anyone were interested in trying to figure out which of
>>>those
>>>categories applies to the elements of the COSMO ontology:
>>>http://www.micra.com/COSMO/
>>>I would have no objection. If some useful function could be
>>>demonstrated by
>>>the act of such a classification, I would be intrigued and may change
>>>my
>>>mind about their usefulness.''
>>>
>>>I propose to review the extant upper ontologies, COSMO, SUMO, BFO,
>>>DOLCE,
>>>etc. including the OWL sequels, according the following criteria:
>>>1. how comprehensive their class (or type) and relationship
>>>hierarchies;
>>>2. how consistent their categorical structures to represent the
>>>
>>>
>>world;
>>
>>
>>>3. how expressive their languages to understand the world, its parts
>>>and
>>>domains;
>>>4. how effective their key meanings, concepts, definitions,
>>>principles,
>>>axioms, rules to apply for practical domains;
>>>5. how efficient these top ontologies for building ontology
>>>
>>>
>>technology,
>>
>>
>>>reasoning applications and semantic systems and knowledge
>>>
>>>
>>technologies,
>>
>>
>>>as
>>>SW or Future Internet.
>>>
>>>Re COSMO. While trying to find out the number one point, i read in
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>Overview:
>>>'' Most of the types (OWL classes) in the current COSMO have been
>>>
>>>
>>taken
>>
>>
>>>from
>>>the OpenCyc OWL version 0.78, and from the SUMO. Other elements were
>>>taken
>>>from other ontologies (such as BFO and DOLCE) or developed
>>>
>>>
>>specifically
>>
>>
>>>for
>>>COSMO. As of version 0.52 (July 2008) the COSMO had 5280 classes
>>>(types)
>>>and 556 relations.''
>>>
>>>As far as the project is proposed as a foundation ontology, it would
>>>
>>>
>>be
>>
>>
>>>engaging to see its top hierarchy of entities and relations, its
>>>similarity
>>>or difference from cogent systems.
>>>
>>>There is a popular benchmark, the WordNet hierarchy of things,
>>>
>>>
>>setting
>>
>>
>>>the
>>>standard of quality. However inconsistent, it gives rather clear
>>>divisions:
>>>Entity (Physical Entity, thing, object, cause, substance, physical
>>>process;
>>>Abstract Entity, psychological feature, attribute, group, relation,
>>>communication, quantity, set, otherworld). How the COSMO ontology
>>>differs
>>>from it in a progressive way? Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>---- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:05 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Upper ontology content and structure
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike -
>>> Concerning your question:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MB> It also made sense to me, to distinguish between first- second-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and third-order classes of Thing, as defined by John Sowa and
>>>>>others (John's book summarises the history of those terms very
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>well).
>>>
>>>
>>>>MB> What interests me, and what I am really asking here, is why is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>this approach not noticeable in upper ontology resources like
>>>>>the Suggest Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO)? Am I missing something?
>>>>>SUMO looked to me like a single taxonomic hierarchy of classes
>>>>>of Thing, without these three sets of partitions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I can't answer for SUMO, but I can tell you why those distinctions
>>>don't
>>>appear in COSMO:
>>> *** there is no apparent need for them, and spending time trying
>>>
>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>>decide into which of those abstract categories one might place
>>>
>>>
>>specific
>>
>>
>>>types or relations does not make any sense to me, as they add nothing
>>>to the
>>>intended meaning. ***
>>> Wherever one might think that a type or relation fits one of
>>>
>>>
>>those
>>
>>
>>>categories, the more specific and meaningful type or relation itself
>>>will
>>>carry all the meaning required to perform the intended function of
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>ontology.
>>> The top level of COSMO under 'Thing' has 20 types, and one of the
>>>those
>>>('Individual') is a heterogeneous grouping of other types that are
>>>mostly
>>>heterogeneous groupings associated by some property (a 'faceted'
>>>categorization). If I had 'firstness' secondness' and 'thirdness' at
>>>the
>>>top level, I expect that few people wanting to find some particular
>>>type of
>>>thing would have no idea where to start in the drill-down process.
>>>Tools
>>>like Protégé that allow searching for substrings in the label for a
>>>type
>>>help immensely, but as far as creating a hierarchy for drill-down
>>>
>>>
>>when
>>
>>
>>>string search fails, those three abstract categories, in my
>>>
>>>
>>estimation,
>>
>>
>>>are
>>>quite useless. I am very concerned with usability of any ontology,
>>>meaning
>>>that it has to be as easy as possible to understand, while preserving
>>>its
>>>technical adequacy.
>>>
>>> Those abstract categories may be interesting for philosophical
>>>speculation, but I have never observed any function for them in
>>>automated
>>>reasoning. More specific issues dominate my concerns about
>>>representing
>>>meaning.
>>>
>>> If they help you organize your own thinking about the meanings of
>>>concepts, they may be useful, for you, for that purpose. I haven't
>>>found
>>>them useful in that way.
>>>
>>> However, if anyone were interested in trying to figure out which
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>those
>>>categories applies to the elements of the COSMO ontology:
>>>http://www.micra.com/COSMO/
>>>I would have no objection. If some useful function could be
>>>demonstrated by
>>>the act of such a classification, I would be intrigued and may change
>>>my
>>>mind about their usefulness.
>>>
>>>Pat
>>>
>>>Patrick Cassidy
>>>MICRA, Inc.
>>>908-561-3416
>>>cell: 908-565-4053
>>>cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>
>
>
> (04)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: 020 7917 9522
Mob: 07721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|