Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

[Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The speed of this discussion is quite fast...

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I will reply to one point that Ali Hashemi made that illustrates a profound misunderstanding, and then let him respond (hopefully) to the correct interpretation.

Yea gods!  That is precisely the problem that the FO addresses.  I am sure I have said on a number of occasions that one of the important functions of the FO is precisely to have sufficient primitives and relations so that all other ontologies, including the various “Upper Ontologies” that have already been developed can be **logically** specified in terms of the FO elements, so that any information in any one of these can be translated into the form use by the others.  I have emphasized over and over that an FO will have carefully specified meanings, and I can’t begin to imagine how anyone could get the impression that these are just labels.  Look again at several posts form the thread – perhaps the terminology in a clause of one sentence might be ambiguous, but not the whole discussion.

 

I'm sorry, I was thinking back to the numerous discussions in the past regarding what that set of primitives would be. The procedure for how to extend them et al weren't including in my mind and they address this issue. There have been some invaluable contributions recently (i.e. by Matthew re the difference b/w logical and ontological primitives) that have helped clarify what is being discussed.

With respect to logical primitives (not ontological primitives), i've done some work on this regard that may be of help. Since most of the work is being represented via a formal language, specifically First Order Logic (or variants thereof), there are recurring logical structures that pervade any descriptions employed using said language. The candidates we identified as promising logical primitives are culled from mathematics. The idea is grounded in metaphorical thinking. See (Danesi - "Abstract Concept Formation as Metaphorical Layering", 2002;  Gallese & Lakoff, "The Brain's Concepts: The Role of the Sensory Motor System in Conceptual Knowledge" 2006, Rodolfo Llinas  - pretty much all of his work from 1980-now on the olivocerebellar tract)... Some of it was covered in my Master's thesis shared on the forum last year

I certainly agree there are likely logical primitives, though perhaps the language I used to make the case was unfamiliar with this community - i.e. "the medium is the message" - obviously ideas represented in a logical formalism will reuse the same structures....

  A double misunderstanding here: (1) there is a great deal more than labels, there would be axioms and even procedural code sufficient to precisely specify the meanings; (2) no one group can develop an FO – its purpose is interoperability, and it must therefore be developed by a large number of independent groups who can verify its suitability for both their own local purposes and for accurate exchange of information among them.  The COSMO is not proposed as or likely to be adopted as an FO, it is a test ontology that I will be using to demonstrate some of the basic principles of an FO.

See above.

 

Yes, and the most effective mechanism to “map” between DOLCE, SUMO, and CYC, etc. (and the domain ontologies dependent on them)  would be to have another FO that has enough of the primitive conceptual elements to do the translations among them.  Mappings might be made 1 to 1 among these ontologies, but if new basic ontologies are developed, the number of required mappings would be N^2, and each mapping would require an effort comparable to developing a new ontology – maybe more.  Easier to have a common reference ontology (the FO) and map each such ontology to that, once.  You seem to recognize the virtue of having a common “interlingua” but for some reason don’t recognize that the FO is just the most general case, useful for a wider range of topics than those other “interlingua” ontologies.

This is a point of contention. These number of "basic" ontologies has been relatively static over the past 5 years. They're very similar to your desired set of primitives. Yes, if new ones were being developed frequently, the N^2 would be a problem, but that's hardly the case. I agree that the hub-spoke method is generally more effective. Where we differ is that i am fine with having 5-6 hubs, instead of seeking that 1 special hub.

The more I think about it, we don't really differ in our views all that much beyond 1 hub versus 5-6.

 But the FO project I have suggested is aimed not just at producing an “interlingua” ontology, but **demonstrating** with open-source public programs how it can be used and how it can enable interoperability among independently developed applications or databases.  Can you reference any examples from existing projects where we can see how useful domain ontologies or applications or databases have been able to interoperate in a practical (non-toy) application?

Nope, but the latter part is also orthogonal to your project. Any project that seeks to demonstrate with open source / public programs how interoperability can be effectively utilized is of tremendous value and I would support in any way I can.
 

I seem to recall ontology-ontology mapping work (without an FO or equivalent) being done for over 10 years now.  What do you consider as impressive results suggesting that this tactic will pay off?

Well, most of the effort has been on mapping ontologies based on DL's which imo is fundamentally flawed. Most of their semantics are still external to the actual knowledge representation -- it is trying to link black boxes to one another. I am not surprised most work in SM have yielded minimal returns. Once people are more comfortable expressing more of what they mean in their heads in the language of representation, the problem of semantic mapping will be greatly facilitated.

 Oh, and meanwhile, in those 10 years US industry has wasted over 1 trillion dollars for lack of semantic interoperability.  That’s a cost too, even if no one agency has to pay it.  I think that the problem is sufficiently urgent that every plausible tactic should be tried.

And finally :

The FO project  **is** mapping work, but more general and therefore more useful than any more narrowly focused mapping.  And I can’t imagine why both approaches couldn’t be tried at the same time.  There is enough money, it is just a matter of recognizing the importance of the problem. 

I agree that if achieved an FO would have benefits. I've made a case that it would be repeating a lot of work currently being done, and resources would be more effectively directed at trying to making a better coherence out of what exists instead of seeking consensus. See the difference?

Let me put it another way.

The steps in creating an FO consist roughly of the following (correct me if i'm wrong):

1. Identify candidate ontological primitives, identify candidate logical primitives
2. Figure out similarities and differences of candidates
3. Develop mappings between candidates
4. Reach consensus on what are the "-true-" // appropriate// useful primitives

Steps 1-3 are in effect, figuring out the mappings between the current existing Upper Ontologies (assuming they provide adequate cover). Step 4 is where the FO differs. Making the case to do 1-3 is much easier, and less risky as it provides immediate tangible benefits to the entire community.

One of the key stumbling blocks to 1-3 right now are that the significant parts of the UO's are underspecified. No one is quite sure what exactly the developers meant in their use of their upper most terms. A project such as the one you are proposing could provide invaluable insight in clarifying these claims.

Finally, there's Step 4. And imo, if I were making a pitch for funding, i wouldn't base my rationale around it. To me it seems like an optional module that can be pursued if there seems to be a striking case that yes, we have identified some really useful primitives! Otherwise, getting to Step 4 is doing all the necessary grunt work which provides the most value.

Pat

Best of luck,

Ali

Patrick Cassidy

MICRA, Inc.

908-561-3416

cell: 908-565-4053

cassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)