[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Namespaces for ontologies

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:40:23 -0700
Message-id: <C615E807.3492%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>

Major thanks for this.  As for the caveat, I had similar thoughts.  What I want to do is a limited roll out and only those who are willing to initially learn the system would be allowed to make the references until it is clear that it works or not.  This probably sounds very elitist but that is how I want to proceed.

The time issue is also something I have thought about however the goal is to put the theory into practice and see if it is or is not useful.   As with complexity, I would assume that the real world results will speak for themselves.

Wordnet is where I was also thinking of going but I find it incomplete.  For example, take the definitions of river and creek:

1. a large natural stream of water (larger than a creek); "the river was navigable for 50 miles"

2. a natural stream of water smaller than a river (and often a tributary of a river)

Circular reasoning or no loose ends?

I guess I am curious to see this ported to the masses to see where it fails or works.


On 4/22/09 5:45 PM, "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Duane –
  I don’t have any suggestions about how one might best use URL’s to reference ontology elements.  However, I do have some thought about whether one might or might not want to.
  I’m not quite sure what you intend to accomplish by allowing taggers to link their tags to upper ontology elements from any old ontology.  Since the relationships of the upper ontologies to each other have not yet been well developed, it would only be useful for those who have chosen to tag by reference to the same ontology.  That might be somewhat useful, but see the caveat below.
If, however,  you think this is a way to bring the power of crowds to actually finding the relations among ontologies (i.e. a tag referenced to more than one ontology creates a putative identity link), then this is an interesting new way to go about the ontology mapping task.  But that method has a problem:
Caveat: since upper ontologies are hard to understand, I suspect few taggers will have the patience to work though those structures except to find the most common tags like “person” or “organization”, and in those cases the bare tag would probably have a common-sense meaning which others would understand without the ontology reference.  
An example of the problem is the axiom you gave, apparently taken from SUMO.  To interpret it, one needs to read the documentation for the ‘time’ relation.   For perspicuity, I would recommend that any project of that type at least rename the relations with a verbal form – in this case ‘existedAtTime’.  That can help users at least avoid having to puzzle over their recollection of the meaning and polarity of the relation.  The whole relation means that an Object exists at every time point within *some* time interval. I have never been able to figure out under what circumstances this axiom might be useful in inference, though it makes a sensible philosophical statement about physical objects.
It would be good to see crowds adopt a single ontology that is well-structured but easy to understand.  In that case I think the best tactic is to have such an ontology developed by the taggers themselves for their purpose, with the help of some willing ontologists.  The existing ontologies can be taken as starting points, but having the taggers use a common ontology would be a lot more effective.
If you think that there is a clamor among taggers to use some particular existing ontology, so that that one of them must be included in the mix that the taggers use, I would be very interested to know which ones have that distinction.  So far the biggest public tagging corpora I know of reference WordNet.
   As for versioning, in the cases I am familiar with, new elements tend to get added, but the basic structure of the main elements seldom changes (though the WordNet indexes change).  There are occasional exceptions, one of which happened with the way Cyc handles attributes, a few years ago.    But since the process you describe is so subject to variation that I think that the variation added by ontology versions will not be significant, and I wouldn’t worry about versioning – at least beyond the 1.0 stage.

Patrick Cassidy
cell: 908-565-4053

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:10 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Namespaces for ontologies

Hey all:

I am right now placing FOL binary relationships into the associations binding for labeled relations in a test Registry-Repository.  I am doing this because I got sick of just talking about this and not actually coding and doing something to solve the problem so the Canadian cowboy instinct to code first and see where problems arise has taken over.  

I have run into a problem that I would appreciate input on. My goal is to bind something like this:

      (instance ?OBJ Object)
            (?TIME1 ?TIME2)
                  (instance ?TIME1 TimePoint)
                  (instance ?TIME2 TimePoint)
                  (before ?TIME1 ?TIME2)
                                    (beforeOrEqual ?TIME1 ?TIME)
                                    (beforeOrEqual ?TIME ?TIME2))
                              (time ?OBJ ?TIME))))))

..to a registry-repository instance to allow folksonomy tags to reference the upper level ontology classes the folksonomy tag owners believe they belong to.  Additionally, each instance of a folksonomy tag may have * relationships to other ontology classes or even other folksonomy tags.  The latter relastionships can be defined in terms of contrained relationship tags like “synonym, disjoint, etc.”.

I want to represent all upper ontologies however some of them contain subtle nuances between their terms.  Dolce, SUMO and others have defined binary relationships like transitive, intransitive, reflexive, irreflexive, symmetrical as well as some partial ontologies.  The problem is that there are no namespace qualifications for these so I want to introduce that into my work.  I was planning on just using the root URL’s for each work however there are versions possible in some of the work.

I would like this to be in the firm of  <upper_ontology_identifier>+<version_or_instance>+<uuid> as a classifier followed by the term label such as “transitive”.  I will probably use URI’s for the UUID.


Has anyone ever come across a similar problem and if so, how did they solve it?

Thoughts and comments welcome too.


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>