ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" Mike Bennett Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:39:53 +0000 <49677DD9.5020604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Interesting site, but I can't make it answer questions about derivatives. Do you have to formulate the questions in certain ways or is there a limit to the questions you can ask?    (01) Mike    (02) Adrian Walker wrote: > Hi Ed -- > > You wrote... > > /Logically, from two tables that involve the same key value, e.g./ > /R1(a,b) and R2(a, c, d), what we can conclude is "R1(a,b) AND/ > /R2(a,c,d)". Using Codd's algebra, we can generate Rx(b,c,d), but we/ > /have no idea what the meaning of Rx is. In database manipulations the/ > /semantics of Rx is in the mind of the engineer and the algebraic formula/ > /is an algorithm for realizing the satisfying tuples. Now, we can indeed/ > /assume the existence of a common basic logic grammar and its semantics,/ > /with the consequence that we will know what logical manipulations of/ > /these relations are truth-preserving. But the semantics of any of the/ > /relations is still in the heads of the engineers./ > > There is actually a solution for this. Instead of writing R1and R2, > use meaningful English sentences as table headings. When you combine > R1 and R2, again use a meaningful English sentence for the > combination, instead of the semantically opaque "Rx". > > In this way, the semantics in the heads of engineers is shared with > others who will use the knowledge and the computations. > > As you may know, there's a system online at the site below that > supports this approach. The system explains its results, in English, > at the business or scientific level -- even it the results were gotten > by running automatically generated SQL. It's able to do this because > the semantics were captured from the engineers' heads at knowledge > input time. > > Cheers, -- Adrian > > > Internet Business Logic > A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over > SQL and RDF > Online at www.reengineeringllc.com > Shared use is free > > Adrian Walker > Reengineering > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Ed Barkmeyer > wrote: > > Neil Custer wrote: > > > 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. > > I think this is an interesting "engineering experiment", as long as it > comes with some success metric. That is: If you know what benefit you > want, define an objective criterion that determines whether you have > achieved some part of that benefit. Now, do indeed choose and use an > ontology engineering methodology, and see if and when it results in > satisfying that criterion. And be prepared for the methodology to > fail, > or to need significant additions or modifications to succeed. Then > please report on it. > > The trick with something like this is to (have the leisure to) take a > scientific view of the activity as an experiment. The experimental > result may support or contradict the benefit hypothesis, and EITHER > result is equally important. > > The problem with most real software engineering activities is that > they > must succeed, and the methodology will be (publicly or secretly) > modified as needed to achieve some modicum of project success. And at > the end, it behooves no one to report that the chosen methodology > failed > (typically because it is perceived to lay blame on the individuals who > chose it). > > (We successfully demonstrated that a 6th Framework technology could be > used to solve a practical problem as long as cost/benefit was not a > consideration. Of course, it was only politically correct to publish > the first half of that.) > > > - 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). > > I don't understand this. > > > 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". > > You are not alone. > > > 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 have many problems with this. That which is as simple as a > table in a > database is a logical relation. Each row captures a single "fact"; a > set of occupants of the columns (roles) for which the relation > maps to True. > > It can be related to other tables only as long as everyone agrees that > the occupants of the columns denote the same things. In Neil's terms, > every table designer agrees that these are primary keys and on what > thing each key value denotes. My experience is that once you get past > nonnegative integers that count things, the agreement on the > denotations > of most key values is restricted to a small user community. (There is > however wide use of a handful of standards that name individuals: > countries, languages, organizations.) > > We might have a better chance of agreeing on the denotations of > the key > values if we could agree on the meanings of the names at the tops > of the > columns, or even the meaning of the name of the table, but alas, > we find > it very difficult to get such agreement over any but local > communities. > > Logically, from two tables that involve the same key value, e.g. > R1(a,b) and R2(a, c, d), what we can conclude is "R1(a,b) AND > R2(a,c,d)". Using Codd's algebra, we can generate Rx(b,c,d), but we > have no idea what the meaning of Rx is. In database manipulations the > semantics of Rx is in the mind of the engineer and the algebraic > formula > is an algorithm for realizing the satisfying tuples. Now, we can > indeed > assume the existence of a common basic logic grammar and its > semantics, > with the consequence that we will know what logical manipulations of > these relations are truth-preserving. But the semantics of any of the > relations is still in the heads of the engineers. > > So, the more fragmented the knowledge model, the less useful it > is. It > takes mutual understanding to integrate it with anything else. > The more > you have already integrated, the more problems can be solved using > your > ontology. OTOH, the more you have already integrated, the more > philosophies and assumptions you require a user to accept. And > that may > make it much harder to integrate with other useful ontologies. So > this > seems to follow the Diamond Principle: A little fragmentation is > good. > Too much fragmentation is debilitating, and too little fragmentation > is oppressive and brittle. > > > 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 that approach is so clearly ill-led and doomed to failure that you > should avoid excessive exposure to it, much as you would UV radiation. > > > 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. > > Well, as far as I can tell, that quest is the Holy Grail of only one > quixotic knight. > > The original question was: what should be the relationship between > ontologies and the many existing and emerging standard information > models and dictionaries that support standards of practice? > > -Ed > > -- > Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx > > National Institute of Standards & Technology > Manufacturing Systems Integration Division > 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, > and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 >    (03) -- 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    (04) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (05) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Tolk, Andreas Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Neil Custer Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Mike Bennett Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Ed Barkmeyer Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Adrian Walker Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Mike Bennett <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Adrian Walker Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Neil Custer Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Azamat Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Neil Custer Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Ed Barkmeyer