One *gentle* dissent here.
I don't disagree that finding commonalities in a gradual process is
possible, I just think it is **much too slow** to be a practical tactic. I
do note that it is the path of least resistance, since it will allow
everyone currently getting funding to continue doing what they know how to
do and get funded (and individual academic credit) for it. That tactic
would gain some credibility if, after all these years of working in that
direction, there were in fact some local systems developed separately for
different domains that have successfully interoperated (i.e., allowing
automated inference from external information to draw useful conclusions).
Thus far I haven't seen any examples. If there are any, I hope those who
promote the gradual-lets-find-something-in-common tactic would point us to
those examples where we can do some testing to see for ourselves just how
well it works. (01)
But if you are convinced, as I am, that there are substantial *costs* to
delaying the arrival of an agreed common ontology, or accurately mapped set
of ontologies, then it makes a great deal of sense to *also* try the
alternative tactic of directly funding a large group to develop a Foundation
ontology and extensions that they can use to interoperate, with separately
developed programs in different domains sharing information useful for
automated inference. That would be the goal of the common Foundation
Ontology project I have suggested. It has all the desiderata claimed for
the gradual process, but would move a lot faster. Alas, it would require as
much funding for the one project as for thirty separate local projects. I
just think it will accomplish a lot more for interoperability than thirty
separate local projects, even if they try some post-hoc mapping. (02)
Pat (03)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:47 PM
> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>
> >
> >> EB>> I, for one, would prefer to see the next 5+ years spent on
> >>>> in vivo testing of knowledge engineering concepts, and on
> >>>> the development of a discipline. Think of it as the medical
> >>>> experience that will give us some knowledge of the required
> >>>> properties of your panacea.
> >>
> >> [MW] I agree. It would be a good idea to know what we are doing
> >> before doing it on a large scale.
> >>
> >> [JFS] I strongly agree. That was the point of my note on
> >> methodology,
> >> which emphasizes the distinctions as more fundamental than the
> >> particular choice of categories.
> >
> > Now that we are all in violent agreement, I would point out that
> > Amanda
> > said it first:
> >
> >> The best way to develop an upper ontology may be to let it emerge.
> >> Pursue
> >> applied ontology projects as described above, and bring in the
> >> upper (and
> >> upper-middle) as they are needed. Bring in higher level concepts as
> >> you need
> >> them to connect concepts accross domains, to model the logical
> >> behavior and
> >> other characteristics of the domain-specific concepts, to avoid
> >> redundant
> >> and oddly-placed assertions on domain concepts that can accurately
> >> be placed
> >> on shared concepts shared across the domains.
> >
>
> Indeed. I would point out that this is almost exactly the Semantic Web
> vision of how ontologies will evolve through use and re-use of
> concepts, so that a system of useful concepts with commonly accepted
> ontological content attached to them will emerge from their use by a
> community.
>
> Even more of us are in violent agreement, it seems.
>
> Pat H
>
>
> > -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
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|