You are right about the issues around XML schema efforts. One of the
recurring themes seems to be the problem of people looking at the same
things from different perspectives. We often hear the phrase "meaning is
context", which I don't agree with, but it's certain that you can't deal
with meanings without contexts of one sort or another, including but not
limited to the kind of context which is the viewpoint from which someone
looks at something. (01)
I think there is a lot of stuff like this, which OWL (for example) does
not deal with. Perhaps there is a need for some more formal methodology
around how high level ontology constructions are built. Clearly the
"Pizza is a Thing" approach is of no practical use in this. (02)
As a start, as I have noted before, John Sowa's top levels of
Independent/Relative/Mediating, Continuant/Occurrent, Concrete/Abstract
provide some important building blocks for defining top level things
which are more robust than you would otherwise get, for example it
allows you to distinguish between roles, parties etc. versus independent
entities that take on those roles - this solves one problem that
stand-alone data models often encounter when someone needs to align or
cross reference terms in disparate data sources. (03)
Similarly I think that the "third order" of Mediating Thing provides one
possible way of defining the different viewpoints from which otherwise
confusable things are seen, though I would want to give that more
thought. Would it be possible to develop a theory for defining classes
of things as seen from various different ontological commitments, within
a single framework, using these and perhaps some additional, similar
high level classes? (04)
I suspect that such an endeavour if attempted in OWL would soon come up
against the limitations of OWL. In particular, I think that one would
need some kind of triadic relationships formally defined as part of the
syntax, in order to deal with the various ways in which classes of thing
seen from different viewpoints can be related to each other. Also would
triadic relationships be enough or do you need n-adic relationships? (05)
Also I suspect one would need to start with a clear demarcation between
meaning, truth, fact and "Thing". If as Patrick suggests one can have
separate ontological classes for Person3D and Person4D then how does
this relate to the Thing which is a Person? Something needs to be
separated out for clarity I think, and the formalism for dealing with
this should ideally be part of the ontology language. (06)
Anyway all of this looks like a useful agenda for research - this is the
kind of high level view that probably would not emerge unaided from
individual industry efforts, though those need to be the economic driver
for wanting to sort out these questions. (07)
Mike (08)
Neil Custer wrote:
> Dr. Tolk, As an aside, I am typically very optimistic about the
> advance of technology in general. I've worked for the federal
> government (military) for 28+ years in IT. In my opinion if you are
> waiting for "... strong leadership by managing organizations .... in
> particular government organizations when it comes to spending tax
> dollars to the maximal benefits of the people, and not just one
> project.", then you are a bigger optimist than anyone on the forum. I
> agree that lack of leadership and knowledge by PMs and IT leadership
> in the government has been questionable at best for a long, long
> time. Perhaps someone here thinks Obama's new government CTO will be
> our messiah... but I doubt it ;-)
>
> To the rest of the forum: I have been standing on the sidelines in
> the forum long enough to see that it appears even the most respected
> of ontology experts such as yourselves can't agree what the right
> direction might be to find the holy grail of knowledge capture and
> reuse. My humble opinions rarely get even a grumble (perhaps because
> I'm not a Philosophy PhD that has built ontologies for years, but
> don't fault me for that--I can still follow your discussions) but I
> think intelligent people with original ideas can spark a solution if
> those with the implementation intelligence will listen. Having said
> that, I agree with Mr. Wheeler's supposition that there has been
> little in the "killer app" department to show the true benefits of a
> foundation ontology, and when even those in a field as advanced as the
> life sciences community has trouble agreeing on ontological formats,
> primatives, and what have you, then perhaps the approach needs to be
> rethought.
>
> Two ideas I'll float to see if they make any sense whatsoever:
>
> - With so many viewpoints of an ontology's construction and purpose:
> Pick one benefit and push the construction methodology to the limit to
> further that particular benefit--perhaps some other natural benefits
> may fall out as side effects.
>
> - Determine a way to express the ontology construction aspect as an
> ontological type based on its purpose/benefit. Then determine methods
> for these to interact (or more particularly, describe the
> relationships between them). It seems illogical to me to try to
> capture all knowledge in a single ontology, just as it is ridiculous
> to capture all facts about a domain in a single flat-file "database".
> My thinking is that when a single ontological discourse can be
> captured in something as basic as a table in a database and can be
> related to other tables in a knowledge domain as easily as building
> primary keys between tables in a database, then the ability to use the
> information contained in a set of domain ontologies will take off at
> an unbelievable pace.
>
> I've been exposed to teams that have been building enormous XML
> schemas with the intent of modeling all possible uses for all of the
> data they may want to exchange in an enterprise and the end result is
> so floppy that it is basically meaningless in terms of the possible
> descriptive capabilities of XML. I perceive a similar situation has
> risen in this forum for trying to find an ontology approach that meets
> all knowledge engineer's needs and is hitting up against this same
> conundrum.
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tolk, Andreas <atolk@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:atolk@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> PRIMITIVES OF MEANING
>
> I think that this question of "primitives of meaning" is very
> important, although I do not believe that we will be able to
> identify such "atomic expressions of meaning" easily. One of the
> problems is that such atomic expressions may not represent
> concepts but will only be properties of concepts that gain their
> meaning from the contexts in which they are used. This leads to
> the challenge of multi-scope, multi-resolution, and
> multi-structure models. While the challenges of differences in
> scope (different concepts are represented) and resolution
> (different levels of resolution are used) are self-explaining, the
> challenge of structure is often not perceived.
> Chuck Turnitsa and I introduced the example of number- and
> letter-world. Given, e.g., four properties A1, A2, B1, and B2,
> number-world uses numbers as the identifying category and uses A1
> and B1 to identify concept "1" and A2 and B2 to identify concept
> "2". Letter-world identifies concept "A" using A1 and A2 and
> concept "B" using B1 and B2. While both worlds have different
> concepts, they use the same properties to characterize them. For
> number- and letter-world, the primitives of meanings are these
> properties.
> The problem boils up when we add more models that may introduce
> additional levels of resolution. What if in this third model the
> resolution is higher and the properties become concepts? These
> observations motivated the thesis that primitives of meaning are
> context specific and will be comparable to the idea of the
> "highest common factor / greatest common divisor." If this thesis
> is true, the primitives of meaning are not easily standardisable
> in multi-resolution environments. They are valid in a federation
> of models as long as no model with a higher resolution is
> introduced. We introduced the idea of a common reference model
> that is enhanced (increasing the resolution of properties) or
> extended (adding new properties) using engineering principles. A
> guess this comes very close to the ideas of a "foundation ontology."
>
> Long story short: I really believe that this is an interesting
> question and needs to be evaluated with rigor. We may find that
> there is no general solution, but many practically applicable
> special solutions, as pointed out by Pat. I agree.
>
> KILLER APPS AND STANDARDS AND CONSTRAINTS
>
> Working in the military Command and Control realm for several
> years - and in support of multiple nations - my perception may be
> blurred by some business domain specific constraints, but my
> experience is that without incentives supporting the use of the
> standard or real disadvantages when not using the standard (or
> both) industry partners will always try to bring in their special
> and often proprietery solutions.
> Real education is needed, in particular for project managers and
> their managers. As rightfully pointed out in this discussion
> before: if only the community benefits, but the contributing
> projects pay (without incentive), it is not going to happen.
> I have become a pessimist regarding self-emerging standards ... I
> think that strong leadership by managing organizations is needed,
> which includes in particular government organizations when it
> comes to spending tax dollars to the maximal benefits of the
> people, and not just one project.
>
> ==================== ;-)
> Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
> Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529
> Voice 757-683-4500 Fax 757-683-5640
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (09)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|