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

["Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sharing facts and opinions are useful, but in discussing a project, goals and methods will determine the likelihood of success.  If the goal is to create an ontology repository that has a mechanism to relate the ontologies to each other, it would be well to decide before starting what that mechanism would be.  I have suggested a core foundation ontology that can serve as a means to translate the other ontologies into each other (if they are logically compatible), or to specify exactly where they differ, if logically incompatible.  If logically compatible with the core, they can be part of a hierarchy with the core as the root node.

   If I interpret John’s lattice suggestion correctly, the kind of foundation ontology I have in mind would be somewhere down the lattice from the most general top level which would be compatible with everything.  Then using the foundation ontology would not be a requirement to fit into that lattice.  OK.  The general theory of subsumption in the lattice may be adequate to theoretically relate an infinite number of ontologies, but we want to relate some specific ontologies to each other.    If, for the sake of illustration, we decide to focus first on ontologies that are logically compatible with each other, they would form a hierarchy of increasingly specific theories, but they would also have some common core of which they are all more specific theories.

   I think that to make this method concrete, it would be useful to start by creating a hierarchy of some small group of ontologies – perhaps simplified for the sake of illustration.  If that seems to be a productive path, we can subsequently get more detailed, add more ontologies, and add in logically incompatible ontologies.  If this sounds like a good start, we can inquire as to what ontologies we might try to relate – small demos, maybe?

   If this sounds reasonable, let us see if it can be arranged.  The problem I envision is that this kind of work is so time-consuming that few if any would be able to put in the time required to make serious progress.  The lack of funded time is the rock on which all previous discussions of common ontologies foundered, and I expect it also to be a problem for the task of relating ontologies in a repository to each other.

   The alternative proposal I have in mind, to relate ontologies with a common foundation ontology, does not have to be all-or-nothing fully funded from a vague suggestion.  I imagine that a formal proposal would be the result of a lot of preliminary discussion followed by a meeting of the potential participants that would prepare the formal proposal.  At the end of that meeting, it should be fairly clear whether there is a   realistic chance of achieving the intended goal.  If not, the proposal would never be submitted.  The initial, and perhaps final, financial risk in this scenario would be the cost of funding a meeting of 100 participants.  Maybe 200K?  This meeting would not be similar to the Heidelberg conference, because it would not be intended to resolve disputes or create an ontology, but to only create a proposal that specifies a concrete goal and a process for creating a common foundation ontology that will be used to relate other ontologies to each other.  If it seems useful to include ontologies that are logically incompatible with the core ontology, perhaps it will be possible to identify a more general core of which the foundation ontology is one specialization?  Then that project would be able to include more ontologies than one that requires logical compatibility with the core FO.

 

Pat

 

Patrick Cassidy

MICRA, Inc.

908-561-3416

cell: 908-565-4053

cassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:37 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

 

I think that the wiki is more likely to be a way to document "intelligent unanimity" where it exists rather than in the forum where unanimity is documented by a cessation of discussion rather than a clear statement of agreed fact.

Perhaps, if we can at least document some facts and related opinions in an organized way, we might be able to demonstrate, at least to ourselves, that there is a basis for asking a rich third party to provide some funding with some expectation that they will get more than a brilliant discussion of angel choreography ending in a draw due to exhaustion of funding.

Ron

Azamat wrote:

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:43 PM, John wrote:

"My point is that we can begin this work today with mostly volunteer effort. 

If we do a decent job, the funding will come

later.  But we need to do something solid to demonstrate that this group is 

capable of accomplishing something.  Otherwise,

hope for multimillion-dollar grants is a pipe dream."

It seems we are both late of the current situation with research grants. 

What is really now going on is: the pipe dream ontology projects are getting 

multimillion grants, at least here, in EU, within the framework programs, as 

FP 6 and FP 7. Call them the sink projects, like 16m DIP ontology or 14m 

NeON ontology or OntoLogging or SEK, or what not, easily absorbing the 

public funds with  all sorts of ontological phantasies. I indicated this 

reckless and irresponsible academic adventurism in the Reality book.

Next, with all my critical approach to things, this Forum can meet the most 

challenging ontological projects unlike others. But what it is lacking the 

organization and intelligent unanimity, always needed at the point of 

criticality.

Azamat Abdoullaev

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:43 PM

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

Ron,

I want to point out that my proposal requires a minimal amount

of funding to get started.

I am not suggesting that we should build a full OR. I believe

that there is a project currently underway. I hope that the

functional requirements that are outlined below will be considered

in that process.

I am not proposing that we begin by developing *any* ontologies.

The starting work requires less effort than this group puts into

a hotly debated email thread:

 1. Define the operators that relate the theories in the hierarchy.

    Adolf Lindenbaum kindly did the theoretical work for us about

    80 years ago, and I summarized it in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of

    the following paper:

    http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm

 2. The next point is to develop a set of policies about how

    to handle contributions, relate them, evaluate them, etc.

    As Elisa said, the OBO has a well developed framework that

    does much of what we need, and we could start by identifying

    what they have accomplished that we can adopt, and what more

    we would like to add.

After these two points have been established (or even during the

debate about them), Peter Yim or anybody else on the list that

wants to do so could set up a Foundation Ontology wiki.

We would also need a cute logo, design graphics, and a URL with

an appropriate name that is dedicated to the Foundation Ontology.

That can also be set up in parallel.

The ontologies themselves would come from donations.  Some of

those that are already available as open source could be adapted

very quickly by adding the appropriate metadata and making a

place for them in the hierarchy.  They need not be physically

moved from their starting places, but we do need to establish

some controls for versioning, etc., which are often minimal

or nonexistent in open-source resources.

My point is that we can begin this work today with mostly

volunteer effort.  If we do a decent job, the funding will come

later.  But we need to do something solid to demonstrate that

this group is capable of accomplishing something.  Otherwise,

hope for multimillion-dollar grants is a pipe dream.

John

_________________________________________________________________

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

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)