ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] meta ontology framework

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:50:30 +0200
Message-id: <0FBFBFD89D084A62932A9DCC3A7D2049@Dev>

Pat,
 
I'm delighted to see you raise this matter again!
 
And to show you just how delighted I am, let me retrieve an introductory piece of a post I was working on just before I had the idea of taking part in Steve Ray's lead-up to the Summit on March 26.
 
I had been explaining, in my unsent draft post, why my "5th instalment" had been so long delayed but why, together with my very premature announcement of my website on TheMainstream.info, I was nonetheless venturing out.  This is how I had put it at that time:
My tactical move, however premature, was triggered by two recent or current ontolog-based activities:

 

(1)  The apparent and regrettable stalemate ending the "Standard Ontology" thread, between Pat Cassidy with his FO concept (Foundation Ontology, though he has also used "Common Foundation Ontology") and almost all other participants.  That thread, beginning in earnest with Pat C's post now at http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-02/msg00138.html, had arisen out of this recognition of a major opportunity:

 

(2)  OntologySummit2009, with its challenging theme, "Toward Ontology-based Standards", as proposed by Steve Ray at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009.

 

The Summit’s looming date a bare few weeks ahead draws me to indicate how we might together resolve - cut? untie? - the FO Gordian knot before it tightens or is brushed aside.

So now I can point out that the "Summit" slideshow I introduced in my recent post now at http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-04/msg00016.html does allude briefly to that part of my proposal that addresses the ontology-for-universal-interoperability requirement you have been approaching from another angle.

 

Today's plain but downloadable version of the slideshow is at http://TheMainstream.info/RideTheMainstream20090406.pps, the annotated but online version at http://TheMainstream.info/RTM.html.

 

Slide 30, bullet 2, is the allusion itself.  But the whole slideshow with its now-added Notes (only in the .html version), together with its references on its slide 18 to earlier instalments of my "MACK basics" series from last year, does build up to that bullet, which might even be identified with the core "Silver Bullet" that my above-linked post went on so long about!

 

So do please try extra hard to understand that slideshow and its notes (which I admit is not an easy matter...).  And do please ask for clarifications where necessary, and make any comments that might come to mind.

 

Paola, the same applies to you, with your question below: "Dont we need a kind of 'meta ontological framework'?"

 

Yes we do, and it's implicit in the subject of that slideshow.

 

Christopher

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] meta ontology framework

Paola,

     At the risk of resurrecting that long discussion, I don’t think this should pass:


[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

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 1:47 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] meta ontology framework

 

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

_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>