Funnily enough I've just come off a call with the Federal Reserve bank
of New York on that very subject. (01)
Mike (02)
Ron Wheeler wrote:
> This approach is most likely to attract funding.
> The fallout from the Sub-prime mess is likely to be massive reporting
> requirements and an ontology with tools that makes it possible for a
> regulator to "understand" the reports submitted and automatically make
> inferences about who is getting into trouble is going to require smart
> systems.
> These reporting requirements are likely to require an updating of some
> of the standards that govern the transmission of financial information
> and this may provide an additional entry point for ontology into the
> discussion.
>
> Another hot area is fraud detection in the governance of the stimulus
> package. It may be too late to control the current expenditure but the
> ongoing monitoring of government contracts would seem to be a place
> where a standards-based ontology would be helpful.
> I have heard that the current budget has $350 million allocated for
> fraud detection ($80 to $150 billion budgeted to be fraudulently spent).
> It should be possible to fund part of the Ontology Project out of this.
> Even if the project can not deliver during this stimulus package, the
> government will continue to spend huge sums of money forever and
> reducing fraud by even a small percent reduction in the current 15% of
> the total budget thought to be fraud or misspending, in a typical year,
> will pay for ontologists to discuss angel choerography forever.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Mike Bennett wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this. I wasn't clear if everyone meant the same
>> thing by FO initially or not, but it's good to see some convergence of
>> thinking. Here are my thoughts:
>>
>> Whether you call it a framework on which to hang terms in different
>> ontologies, or a foundation ontology or whatever, I think there are some
>> top layers that are fundamental enough to try and relate to, though
>> there may be issues with some of these as well (noted below).
>>
>> Starting with John's KR lattice top layers, I would say the following
>> are useful or invaluable, along with some additional stuff:
>>
>> Independent/Relative/Mediating
>> Concrete/Abstract
>> Continuant/Occurrent
>>
>> but with the following notes:
>>
>> Independent / Relative / Mediating - these are pretty fundamental to the
>> nature of any definition of anything. These terms have a recognised
>> intellectual pedigree and can be understood by any business person who
>> is not an ontology specialist, once explained. Everything thca can be
>> defined must be one (and only one) of these.
>>
>> Concrete / Abstract - there are some possible pitfalls around what it
>> meant by abstract, for example a debt is not an abstract concept, but it
>> may only exist electronically or on paper - so concrete things needing
>> to have mass would cut across this. With some thought, this layer could
>> be defined to support most classes of Thing though I think. Maybe I'm
>> over optimistic.
>>
>> Continuant / Occurrent - I have found this very valuable in partitioning
>> concepts, expecially modelling terms for processes, activities like
>> payment and so on. Howevr, Continuant has embedded within it some
>> ontological commitment as to what would be considered continuant for
>> that ontology, and this will vary from one ontology to another (consider
>> a geological ontology versus a real time market data feed). A 4D view
>> would resolve that issue but would not support all those ontologies
>> which take a 3D view. Again I am optimistic that this could be tractable
>> somehow.
>>
>> Then there are things like part v assembly, sets (groups, collections
>> etc) and members (or is Member a relative thing?), and also time, units
>> etc.
>>
>> However in general I think it would be good to try and have some kind of
>> framework whereby the things at the top of most application-specific
>> ontologies could be mapped to some foundational level that took care of
>> these basic dimensions of meaning. That's one thing.
>>
>> Another, very important point I think, is that we should put aside any
>> idea of coming up with some ontology based on or useful for human
>> experience and language in the first instance. What's needed now, and
>> where the money is, is something that deals with meaning for businesses.
>> A business is a much simpler creature than a human, and has much simpler
>> sensory inputs (legal, financial, reputational, risk etc.). Therefore
>> the simplest concepts at the top of almost any useful domain ontology
>> would be a lot simpler than for a dictionary based project. These would
>> also be more amenable to pulling together into some common foundation I
>> think. I think the same thinking can be applied to buildings, science
>> and so on. Model the semantic network of the problem domain, not that of
>> a human.
>>
>> This leads onto another important point: Use the standards. It sounds
>> like we all agree on that. Standards bodies have already developed terms
>> for real, useful applications in every imaginable domain. If something
>> isn't in a standard, I don't imagine anyone in the real world is going
>> to need it any time soon.
>>
>> I'd like to put forward an idea from Ronald Stamper's work, but perhaps
>> in different words: every class of thing in a useful public ontology
>> should have a clearly defined provenance. This is not there in OWL, but
>> I would want to see an ontology metamodel which requires and enforces
>> provenance. This gets us away from the scenario where terms in an
>> ontology are developed by some clever ontologist, and puts us in in a
>> place where all meaningful terms are visibly originated from some well
>> attested standards body.
>>
>> As far as businesses are concerned (and therefore finance and others),
>> there are some basic things needed at the top, which local ontology
>> terms would almost certainly need to specialise (ours certainly do),
>> such as legal terms and basic financial terms - these should not be
>> replicated within individual domain ontologies that derive meanings that
>> are legal, financial etc. XBRL covers the financial stuff, though there
>> are terms specific to the filing of reports that would not be so
>> fundamental. I'm not aware of a legal one but there must be standards
>> for the terms themselves. Legal reality is very much where meaning comes
>> from in business. Then there's units, geography and so on.
>>
>> Similarly existing ontologies like FOAF have terms that are fundamental
>> in a lot of application domains, and people usually know to use them,
>> but some framework which makes that more self-evident would be valuable.
>>
>> I don't know if any of that is contentious (if so, please do contend!)
>> but this is all stuff I've had to create temporarily while waiting to
>> find useful existing stuff, with the exception of XBRL where the only
>> problem was getting a good ontological view of it.
>>
>> The outcome would be a useful framework within which existing,
>> creditable standards bodies could re-cast their material at a business
>> semantics level, based on what they have had to put in XML and other
>> message or database formats (often laboriously and sometimes with
>> errors). A service first and foremost to standards bodies. Ontology
>> would be the tool, not the goal, as far as they are concerned.
>>
>> As I said at the Ontology Summit, I'm happy to put some effort into this.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Azamat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> In establishing the International Group (Body) for Ontology and Semantic
>>> Standards, it might be practical to follow an open world assumption: any
>>> corporation or individual who can contribute an ontology content of wide
>>> interest is a possible member of the group. Here is the example of such
>>> possible members, registered the co-sponsors of the OntologySummit 2009,
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009:
>>> a.. Accuracy&Aesthetics (DeborahMacPherson)
>>> b.. BBN (MikeDean)
>>> c.. Bremen Ontology Research Group
>>> d.. CAESAR Systems Limited (DavidLeal)
>>> e.. CIM3 (PeterYim)
>>> f.. Cycorp (DougLenat)
>>> g.. DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute (StefanDecker)
>>> h.. ECCMA - Electronic Commerce Code Management Association (PeterBenson)
>>> i.. EDM Council - Enterprise Data Management Council (MikeBennett)
>>> j.. EIS - EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd (Cyprus, EU,
>>> AzamatAbdoullaev)
>>> k.. Entsiklopedicheskiye Intellektualniye Systemy (Russia,
>>> AzamatAbdoullaev)
>>> l.. EPISTLE - European Process Industries STEP Technical Liaison
>>> Executive, the consortium responsible for the development of ISO 15926
>>> (MatthewWest)
>>> m.. Eurostep (NigelShaw, DavidPrice)
>>> n.. IBM Research (ChrisWelty)
>>> o.. Information Junction (MatthewWest)
>>> p.. IRSC (RexBrooks)
>>> q.. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 1498 - ISO 24707 Common Logic (CL)
>>> r.. ISO TC 184/SC4 (HowardMason, DavidPrice, DavidLeal)
>>> s.. ISO TC 184 SC 4 JWG8 - the ISO working group that developed the ISO
>>> 18629 Process Specification Language (PSL) standard (MichaelGruninger)
>>> t.. The Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Michigan State
>>> University (BillMcCarthy)
>>> u.. MITRE (LeoObrst, PatCassidy)
>>> v.. NCBO - The National Center for Biomedical Ontology (MarkMusen)
>>> w.. NCOR - (US) National Center for Ontological Research (BarrySmith &
>>> MarkMusen)
>>> x.. The NeOn project (EnricoMotta, AldoGangemi, PeterHaase)
>>> y.. NIST - (US) National Institute of Standards and Technology (SteveRay,
>>> SimonFrechette, MarkCarlisle, EvanWallace, FabianNeuhaus)
>>> z.. NLM, NIH - (US) National Library of Medicine of the National
>Institute
>>> of Health (OlivierBodenreider)
>>> aa.. The College of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern
>>> University (LarryFinkelstein, KenBaclawski)
>>> ab.. OAGi - Open Applications Group (DavidConnelly)
>>> ac.. OASIS - Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
>>> Standards (LaurentLiscia, PeterBrown, JamieClark, et al.)
>>> ad.. OASIS Semantic Support for Electronic Business Document
>>> Interoperability (SET) Technical Committee (AsumanDogac)
>>> ae.. OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) Technical Committee
>(JonBosak
>>> & TimMcGrath)
>>> af.. OMG - Object Management Group (RichardMarkSoley, ElisaKendall,
>>> EvanWallace)
>>> ag.. Ontolog (PeterYim, LeoObrst, KurtConrad)
>>> ah.. Pensive.eu (PeterBrown)
>>> ai.. POSC Caesar (NilsSandsmark)
>>> aj.. The Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research (BMIR)
>>> (MarkMusen, TrishWhetzel)
>>> ak.. STI International (RudiStuder) (1U9D)
>>> al.. Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University (ChrisMenzel)
>>> am.. University of Toronto (MichaelGruninger)
>>> an.. W3C - World Wide Web Consortium (IvanHerman & Ian Jacobs)
>>> As the recent case shows, sooner or later, some astute people may impose
>>> some "core contology" as a conceptual standard. It would be right to do
>such
>>> big things openly and timely.
>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dave McComb" <mccomb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John F. Sowa"
>>> <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We'd be happy to contribute gist, a minamlist UO that we have used on
>>>> several client projects, and is reasonably "shaken down" it's 130
>>>> classes, and 86 properties, maybe more axiomized than suggested, but
>>>> most of the axioms are pretty solid.
>>>>
>>>> We have a couple of known changes we want to make so depending on your
>>>> timing it may be better to wait a couple of weeks
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On May 13, 2009, at 1:59 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> JS: "Any consistent ontology that anyone has ever found useful for any
>>>>> purpose should be in the hierarchy. Many talented people have
>>>>> contributed
>>>>> to those efforts, and their products are being used. ...Any
>>>>> repository for
>>>>> ontologies must accommodate *all* useful versions. It must also show
>>>>> migration paths (generalizations, specializations,and lateral
>>>>> variations)
>>>>> from one useful theory to another by means of the common core."
>>>>> Agree. But we need to form a common core now. I doubt that you can
>>>>> organize
>>>>> all the ontology content holders even within a month, mental inertia
>>>>> is
>>>>> worse than physical inertia. Anybody could join at any stage latter,
>>>>> or when
>>>>> he/she thinks ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> JS: "Something like that will be necessary. But if you bring the
>>>>> big boys
>>>>> in too soon, they will take it over and appoint a committee of their
>>>>> own
>>>>> "experts" to manage it."
>>>>> That's might be so. Then we have to keep the standard ontology
>>>>> project as
>>>>> long as possible as a open international enterprise, mostly relying
>>>>> on our
>>>>> own effort, skill, initiative, leadeship, and intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> JS: " Since this idea has been developed through ontolog forum, we
>>>>> should
>>>>> continue our association with ontolog forum and continue discussions
>>>>> here.
>>>>> Peter Yim and others have done a lot of hard work to establish this
>>>>> forum
>>>>> and the related activities. That is a great advantage."
>>>>> Generally, agree. But the idea started as SUO, did it? Never mind. As
>>>>> Matthew observed a chosen official URL could be tightly linked to the
>>>>> Ontolog Forum's URL. But its mostly important to head off the
>>>>> confusion of
>>>>> ontologies at the Tower of Ontology, when identities lost and
>>>>> distinctions
>>>>> blended. This special initiative is better have its special place on
>>>>> the
>>>>> Web.
>>>>>
>>>>> JS: "But I agree that hosting the results of the efforts on a web
>>>>> site with
>>>>> the name standardontology.org would be a very big plus."
>>>>> If there are no any principal objections from other potential
>>>>> members, we
>>>>> could consider the domain name under the public ownreship of the
>>>>> Group.
>>>>> http://www.standardontology.org
>>>>>
>>>>> JS: "It would also be useful to establish a non-profit organization
>>>>> with the
>>>>> same (or similar name) that could accept nontaxable donations."
>>>>> Right. Is any principal objection against its designation as:
>>>>> International
>>>>> Group for Ontology and Semantic Standards (IGOSS)?
>>>>> Please suggestions or corrections or confirmations.
>>>>>
>>>>> JS: "But it is also important to get some useful technical material
>>>>> to post
>>>>> on the web site before bringing in large numbers of members --
>>>>> especially
>>>>> corporate members."
>>>>> Again, agree. As a start, I am ready to post the SOS (Standard
>>>>> Ontology
>>>>> System): Top Classes and Meanings, as a sample of initial
>>>>> contribution to
>>>>> the common core. Any other concrete suggestions? Patrick, a core
>>>>> COSMO to
>>>>> start? Or they come later? Thanks.
>>>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:54 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ali and Azamat,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AH> Just for posterity -- I don't mean to deprecate the idea of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> foundation ontologies. They are very useful. My intuition is
>>>>>>> just highly sceptical that a (useful / expressive) unique one
>>>>>>> exists. By all means though, in the spirit of scientific
>>>>>>> discovery people ought to investigate it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I share your concerns. Any ontology with detailed axioms will
>>>>>> be incompatible with many legitimate uses that require different
>>>>>> axioms for one application or another. For example, if we put
>>>>>> all the well established laws of physics into one giant theory,
>>>>>> it would be inconsistent with every branch of engineering, since
>>>>>> they all make different approximations for different purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, if you took the common generalization of
>>>>>> all those engineering applications, you would have a theory
>>>>>> that contained very few axioms. It would be little more
>>>>>> than a systematic terminology plus the various relationships
>>>>>> among units of measure for all the physical quantities. Yet
>>>>>> that generalization could be very useful for many purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those reasons, I believe that the common generalization
>>>>>> of all the foundation ontologies will have very few axioms.
>>>>>> It will primarily consist of type-subtype and part-whole
>>>>>> relations that are true by definition. Immediately below
>>>>>> that level will be several branches for different kinds of
>>>>>> specializations. One of the branches would be "pure" physics,
>>>>>> which would be too precise and too detailed for most practical
>>>>>> applications. Other branches would contain any systems of
>>>>>> conventions and approximations that anyone might find useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA> Indeed, for last two decades there have been developed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> high-class ontology content, both upper levels and domain
>>>>>>> ontologies, standing in a pressing need of an integrative
>>>>>>> framework. A minus, hope insignificant, a good willing
>>>>>>> of all the upper ontology content holders and the project
>>>>>>> leaders: CYC, OBO Foundry, DOLCE, West' ISO 15926, NeOn, etc;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please drop the word 'minus'. Any consistent ontology that
>>>>>> anyone has ever found useful for any purpose should be in the
>>>>>> hierarchy. Many talented people have contributed to those
>>>>>> efforts, and their products are being used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that IBM beat Univac primarily because IBM supported
>>>>>> a smooth migration path from punch-card methods to modern computers.
>>>>>> Any repository for ontologies must accommodate *all* useful versions.
>>>>>> It must also show migration paths (generalizations, specializations,
>>>>>> and lateral variations) from one useful theory to another by means
>>>>>> of the common core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA> To define the strategic goal of the Project: standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ontology framework? unified modeling framework? ontology
>>>>>>> and semantic standards? semantic interoperability? open
>>>>>>> ontology library?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of those are legitimate uses, and they should be supported.
>>>>>> The core of the hierarchy should be open and free, but it should
>>>>>> contain links to proprietary ontologies of any kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA> To establish a legal entity: International Group (Body, Panel)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for Ontology and Semantic Standards (IGOSS) or (IBOSS), including
>>>>>>> members, corporate and individual, from USA, EU, and Russia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like that will be necessary. But if you bring the
>>>>>> big boys in too soon, they will take it over and appoint a
>>>>>> committee of their own "experts" to manage it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA> To establish a special web portal, like wisely done by the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OBO Foundry. I am ready to share a domain taken:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.standardontology.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is certainly a good domain name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this idea has been developed through ontolog forum, we should
>>>>>> continue our association with ontolog forum and continue discussions
>>>>>> here. Peter Yim and others have done a lot of hard work to establish
>>>>>> this forum and the related activities. That is a great advantage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I agree that hosting the results of the efforts on a web site
>>>>>> with the name standardontology.org would be a very big plus. It
>>>>>> would also be useful to establish a non-profit organization with
>>>>>> the same (or similar name) that could accept nontaxable donations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is also important to get some useful technical material
>>>>>> to post on the web site before bringing in large numbers of
>>>>>> members -- especially corporate members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> (03)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|