|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:41:43 -0500|
The speed of this discussion is quite fast...|
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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....
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.
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.
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.
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):
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.
Best of luck,
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] 2D drawing primitives (was: Foundation Ontology Primitives), Duane Nickull|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] 2D drawing primitives (was: Foundation Ontology Primitives), Ali Hashemi|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|