Hi Pat,
Just to clarify, the 'nobody is doing it' was not my saying, but
where the conversation pointed at, and I think in particular referred to the lack of any publicly funded research project (that we know of), so yes I think your suggestion below, also discussed earlier on this list, seems to confirm the perception
Discussions also show a divergence of opinions and ideas as to what risks and opportunities may 'another foundational ontology project ' come with, as argued before
And last but not least, as to how such an ontology, or super schema, should be structured and what it should contain.
It looks like there is a case to be made, and a lot of possible approaches to explore
Just it does not seem fair in the light of the above to dismiss outright the need for such mechanism , whatever name it's called, it's being called for, from what I can see
It looks to me it's a matter of finding the right arguments to support such a project, and come up with some sort of proof of concept to test, demonstrate and compare the validity of different possible approaches.
Maybe you can scope a project proposal outline and put out a call for partners, you never know.
PDM
[PD] > But how, I asked , how are we going to get all these little
ontologies to work with one another and possibly synchronise? Dont we need a
kind of 'meta ontological framework'? yes, said Fabio,
everyone who is delivered an ontology needs a framework for it to be casted in
and to align other ontologies with. And who is doing such work? Nobody that
anybody knows of.
Well, do recall the proposal I have been discussing for a
Foundation Ontology as the basis for logical descriptions of any domain ontology
that its creator actually wants to interoperate with others. That ontology,
and methods for extracting parts for use in domain ontologies, is, in my view,
precisely the kind of ‘metaontological framework’ that would enable accurate
interoperability. My own efforts, very limited compared to what needs to be
done by a large consortium, are aimed at providing evidence that such an
approach is technically sound. It is not true that *no one* is working
on the issue, but it is true that a lot of people are ignoring the issue. There
has also been a lot of effort to find methods to map ontologies to each other,
which I think may be useful in some limited contexts. But I cannot visualize
any way that automated mapping can create alignments accurate enough for
mission-critical applications. Semiautomated mappings could help, but unless
they are mapped to a common foundation ontology that has sufficient content to support
translation among alternative representations, the cost of one-on-one
semiautomated alignment will be probative in all but the most pressing cases.
The cost of delay in initiating a consortium effort to develop
an Foundation Ontology acceptable to a large community (it doesn’t need
everyone to agree) is very high, both in lost efficiency of noninteroperable
commercial applications, losses due to hopeless and unnecessary pursuit of alternatives,
and inefficiency in research on AI generally because of the absence of a common
knowledge representation that will allow more efficient reuse of research
results. By comparison, the cost of a serious effort to directly address the
problem with a common Foundation Ontology is miniscule. Be skeptical if it
suits you, but please don’t say that no one is making an effort to address the
problem directly.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
an earlier excerpt from a previous post is going around my
head (sunday blues)
CM
The puzzle is why you don't
grasp the fact that the writer is
obviously arguing against the idea of a single ontology.
At the cost of getting scolded, this discussion is far
from exhausted.
I had this conversation with Fabio Ciravegna after a keynote speech,
where he talks intesively of the small ontology world (federated,
distributed, networked ontology). Point taken. Agreed,
But how, I asked , how are we going to get all these little ontologies to work
with one another and possibly synchronise? Dont we need a kind of 'meta
ontological framework'? yes, said Fabio, everyone who is
delivered an ontology needs a framework for it to be casted in and to align
other ontologies with. And who is doing such work? Nobody that anybody knows
of.
Having read relevant portions of Azamat's work, I think what he calls unified
ontology, and therefore raises eyebrow and argument like the ones we have had
on thi list, and the one above, is a meta ontological framework (not an ontlogy
metamodel like the OMG, but in the same direction). A system to align and
support the synchronization of different part-ontologies
I have no doubt that this kind of work is needed, although I think maybe it
does not always come across cleary what is it exactly, what purpose, what
benefits
I think avoiding to deliver on a unified framework, means that
1. the (domain, application, task) ontologies alone will never be able to be
integrated seamslessy and dynamically aligned with other ontologies and
its overall information environments
2. the gaps created by such built in systemic ontological misalignment will be
very expensive to fix, and the 'need for more research' cycle will be self perpetrating
(and oh yes, a consortium of top universities will deliver that..)
I encourage or anyone who intends to bring a novel perspective (and is
trying to get funded) to
make sure that their proposed ideas are demonstrable and directly aimed
at fill existing gaps.
Now burn me.
pdm
--
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
Forthcoming
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
Forthcoming
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|