John,
A couple of clarifications:
>
> Wait a minute! For a formal ontology, we are not talking about true
> natural languages, but about *controlled natural languages* that can
> be read like NLs, but which require computer checking to maintain
> consistency with the ontology.
>
The NL interface would initially have a limited vocabulary of several
thousand words with which to describe, discuss and clarify the intended
meanings of the data elements, and after resolving any ambiguities, to
convert the descriptions into the logical form. The vocabulary would expand
over time to make it less constricting, but the 'language game' of users
trying to provide clear definitions to the machine would create a context
that makes the interpretation a lot easier than for unrestricted text. (01)
>
> PC> The two problems for which a common FO is especially suited are:
> > (1) broad general accurate semantic interoperability, supporting
> > the integration of multiple *independently developed applications*
>
> [JS] If they are truly independent, then they will inevitably have
> incompatible ontologies.
>
'Independently developed' means developed without any interaction among
the groups using each other's data. If the independent groups use the same
FO to create the logical specifications for their data elements (as
combinations of the FO elements), the local domain ontologies will not be
incompatible. If the local ontologies are not developed using the FO, they
would have to be mapped to the FO, which is a time-consuming process. But
with a common FO, a single such mapping would allow interoperability with
any other system using the FO. (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 John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:14 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fundamental questions about ontology use
> and reuse
>
> Pat,
>
> PC> But the problems you describe... are local problems that do not
> > require a common ontology because they do not require semantic
> > interoperability among multiple independently developed programs.
>
> I was addressing the kinds of problems that exist today, some of
> which are nicely solved by companies like OnologyWorks, and others
> are nicely solved by the VivoMind software I described.
>
> PC> The two problems for which a common FO is especially suited are:
> > (1) broad general accurate semantic interoperability, supporting
> > the integration of multiple *independently developed applications*
>
> If they are truly independent, then they will inevitably have
> incompatible ontologies.
>
> I believe that what you intended to say was "developed by groups
> that agreed *in advance* to adopt the same ontology." That is
> totally different from "independently developed".
>
> Such agreements sometimes happen, and in rare occasions all the parties
> to the agreement will develop something that is consistent on at least
> the most widely used parts (e.g., so called "standards" for SQL, etc.).
>
> Given that people have been talking about the goals for a common
> ontology for about 20 years, and no de facto standard has emerged
> as a candidate, it seems unlikely that there would be any widespread
> agreement on any common ontology for a long time to come.
>
> In fact, even if everybody instantly switched to a common ontology
> for all new software, the existing legacy software would continue
> to be used for at least another 40 years. (That's a conservative
> assumption, since there are still major applications in daily use
> today that are over 40 years old.)
>
> PC> The federation of legacy databases would be greatly accelerated,
> > and most of the work could be done by local data managers, using the
> > kind of natural language interface that I think should be developed
> > as part of the FO.
>
> Wait a minute! For a formal ontology, we are not talking about true
> natural languages, but about *controlled natural languages* that can
> be read like NLs, but which require computer checking to maintain
> consistency with the ontology.
>
> Interpreting anything that people write without using tools to check
> consistency with the FO, will *always* require local approaches, such
> as the ones I described in my previous note.
>
> Fundamental principle: People don't use formal ontologies to generate
> what they say. They can read controlled NLs that are forced to be
> consistent with an FO, but they need strict consistency checkers
> to help them stay within the constraints of any formal ontology.
>
> 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
> (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)
|