Duane,
[DN] >> What would the “Consortium” be?
I have been involved in standards work for over a decade and would not
recommend starting a new SDO for this project, opting instead to utilize the
existing processes and IPR policy infrastructures of existing SDO’s like
OASIS, IEEE, OMG etc.
Other than having some identifiable set of voting members, the actual
organization is open to discussion, but the need to accommodate the financial
accountability rules for any funding source would probably require that it be
nominally controlled through some well-established university or non-profit. Since
the goal is to demonstrate that an FO would have wide usability, there would
have to be an effort to identify as many as possible of the potential user
communities for an FO, and get some representatives from each of those communities
who could be sure that their special concerns were accommodated. In addition
to any of the FO developers who would want to participate, we would surely need
representation from the Ontology Mapping community, the W3C, OMG, OASIS, the
NIEM group, the Modeling and Simulation community, some group that would
focus on database integration and federated search, the natural language
community (creating a WordNet-like resource with a logically accurate hierarchy
would be very useful), some who have worked on other large projects such as
CALO and LarKC, some from the reasoning community, perhaps a Protégé-like tool
developer, and if feasible some commercial groups that might have some very
practical experience to supply, if they were willing to adhere to a very open
IPR policy for this project’s results. I also think we need to reach out
to groups in China – Chinese text may well dominate the web in the not-too-distant
future and this project should handle Chinese as well as European
language-based perspectives. I think in order to be as widely usable as possible,
the results have to be effectively public domain, with only perhaps some
copyrights or trademarks to avoid misuse of the name of the organization and
products.
It certainly would seem that an existing SDO
might accelerate setting up the rules. I just think it would not be feasible
to use a consensus approach, since we already have a history of ontology
developers unenthusiastic about adopting anyone else’s ontological commitments.
Where there are differences, making decisions quickly by voting will be I think
critical to achieving anything useful in a reasonable time frame. Those who are
paid to participate in this project would have to agree ahead of time to a set
of rules for resolving disagreements. The problems they may face should be
fairly clear from preliminary discussions, and those who are unwilling to make
whatever adjustments may seem necessary would presumably not agree to participate.
The commitment of participants would include developing some local application
(could be done by ad hoc groups of participants) and demonstrating the ability
to accurately communicate information among the various applications, using the
FO. I think it will be possible to get 100 competent people representing a lot
of different perspectives to give this approach a try.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane
Nickull
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:57 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology Primitives
Pat:
Your process has a lot of merit. I would advocate others reading it too
(slides 60-72 of Pat’s PPT – the newest version). It helps
clarify a lot of the questions I had in my mind.
Question: What would the “Consortium” be? I have been
involved in standards work for over a decade and would not recommend starting a
new SDO for this project, opting instead to utilize the existing processes and
IPR policy infrastructures of existing SDO’s like OASIS, IEEE, OMG etc.
The overhead of setting up a new organization and getting lawyers to write
IPR policies etc is very time consuming. Do you favour one over the
others due to an alignment of goals or features or would this be something the
conveners would jointly decide.
Duane
PS – sometimes I wish Ontolog Forum was itself an SDO ;-p
On 2/4/10 10:31 AM, "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
A
reply to questions from Ali Hashemi:
[AH] > 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.
(and
subsequently)
>> [AH] You've suggested a number of times that I've
misinterpreted your intuition, yet as far as I can see, each time you write
about the FO, it seems to change its flavour. I'll abstain from commenting
further until the idea has solidified.
> What I am very curious about however - I suggested a number of steps /
benchmarks through which such an exercise might be conducted. You responded
that it is only one interpretation. Might you put forth _your_ interpretation
of how one might go about, step-by-step in formulating such an FO? I
think this would help clarify what you mean to communicate and minimize future
misunderstandings.
OK. I have
refrained from describing a detailed process for development of the FO because
the process itself will have to be **decided on** by the participants in the FO
project, at the preliminary planning stage. The important issue is to get
together a group that will make an attempt to develop a foundation ontology
that can support translation among their ontologies, databases, and
applications. To provide some concrete notion of how the FO project *might*
proceed, I have created one hypothetical process, and include it below. The
danger of suggesting such a process is that it may become another focus for
debate, on a matter peripheral to the main point, i.e. that the best method to
get semantic interoperability is to organize a project that includes
representatives of users who will find the common elements and show how they
can be used to support interoperability among practical applications.
This process below is only one possibility; if parts of it seem to have
problems, keep that notion in reserve and let us know your objections when the
project actually begins planning. Remember that the most important part
of the FO project is to *test* it using multiple independently developed
interoperable applications. I have added this hypothetical process to the
ppt:
http://www.micra.com/COSMO/TheFoundationOntologyForInteroperability.ppt
The
section of the ppt that deals with the overall consortium process for
developing an FO is on slides 60 to 72.
• The FO development method will be agreed
to by the participants in preliminary discussions. One possibility is
given here. – but a different method may be chosen
– Start with all foundation ontologies
(“upper ontologies”) used by the participants, plus the root
concepts in the hierarchies of the domain ontologies (and database schemas) and
all of the relations used in the ontologies and databases of the participants
– Determine which of those are identical in
intended meaning, and whether those that appear to be identical can be
organized in a common ontology, allowing alternate means of expressing the same
intended meaning, and providing translations among the alternate expressions.
– For elements that are not identical in meaning,
determine whether they can be added to the base common FO without creating
logical inconsistencies.
– If logical inconsistencies are detected,
determine if the creators/users of the inconsistent ontologies can agree
on a consistent representation adequate for their purposes; if so, add that to
the FO; if not, determine how to describe their differing elements using the
common FO, and add those elements as parts of mutually inconsistent
extensions to the FO.
– For those elements (types and relations) that
are not identical in intended meaning, determine if they can be logically
specified (described or expressed) as combinations of the elements already in
the FO. If not, they can be added to the FO as additional primitives, if
so they can be added to a mid-level or domain extension – or retained in
the FO if there are no objections.
• The resulting FO will be the first
version, to be tested for its ability to support interoperability.
• This version will be refined as
experience by the consortium using the FO in practical applications
demonstrates the need for modification.
And later:
[AH[ > Firstly, if the current 5-6 upper ontologies are
interconnected with appropriate mappings, and new ontologies are extensions of
any of those 5-6, then we have de facto interoperability. This is why I have
been saying that steps 1-3 in "my interpretation" make the subsequent
FO superfluous.
I believe that the method of trying to recognize semantic primitives is the
most efficient method of developing translations. I say
“translations” rather than “mappings” because the
traditional notion of mappings often covers only parts of the mapped
ontologies, doesn’t have a means of converting formats, and doesn’t
guarantee a high level of accuracy in the conversion. But your project
may have all those properties – I do not know the details. Since
there is a large overlap in the intended result, it is likely that, even if
both projects proceed simultaneously, many of the same people may participate
in both. But I do not think from what I know thus far that either could be
substituted for the other.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
Secondly, I have not suggested it is impossible. I have suggested it is
unclear whether it is possible, and more importantly that even if it were, it
would yield limited value, as all the work is in generating those mappings.
Thirdly, I have not suggested the project can be achieved via volunteer work.
Steps 1-3 (in "my interpretation"), depending on the level of detail
and implementation seem like a prime candidate for a Master of PhD thesis.
Lastly, logical compatibility does not guarantee interoperability. You simply
need to know where there is agreement and difference, and if you want to
communicate with a system in another paradigm / UO family, then you must make
the appropriate allowances from your own perspective. Though perhaps this is a
case of us using language slightly differently.
Ali
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
---
Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Architecture - http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/
My TV Show - http://tv.adobe.com/show/duanes-world/
My Blog – http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
My Band – http://22ndcenturyofficial.com/
Twitter – http://twitter.com/duanechaos
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|