No objection raised for Peter to host the project; the remaining
question, it seems to me, would be whether Peter has the facilities to
host a public SVN. I think he does in relation to some of his wiki
work. (01)
Jack (02)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Thanks for the note of support.
>
> I believe that the only way to get this group to do anything is to
> start with something fairly good and build from there. OpenCyc is
> the most likely candidate, but the FO should give equal support to
> other reasonable ontologies. Therefore, it should be hosted on
> neutral grounds, rather than on a web site that is devoted to
> a specific ontology, such as OpenCyc.
>
> Re Google: That is a possibility, but Peter Yim has been doing
> a good job in hosting ontolog forum and the related web sites.
> Therefore, he should have the right of first refusal to host
> whatever this group develops.
>
> John
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:17:53 -0800
> From: Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I would toss a +1 at this concept of starting somewhere and evolving
> from there. OpenCyc makes sense. What else makes sense might be a
> website for such a project, for instance, http://code.google.com/ ,
> which provides Subversion (and other) version control options, a wiki,
> download area, etc. Perhaps there are other options.
>
> Jack
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:41 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Matthew, Doug, and Pat C,
> >
> > Before getting to the details of your notes, I'd like to clarify the
> > term FO, which Pat introduced for a Foundation Ontology. I have no
> > objection to using the term FO, but I would apply it to the totality
> > of the theories (or microtheories) in an OOR. The Cyc example of an
> > upper ontology with many specialized microtheories would be an example.
> >
> > However, I would broaden the idea to support multiple theories at the
> > upper levels, which might be incompatible. For example, Matthew,
> > Chris P, and Pat H have strongly supported a 4D ontology for the upper
> > levels, but many other people prefer to use a 3D upper level. For
> > many of the lower level microtheories, the differences between a 3D
> > vs 4D foundation are irrelevant.
> >
> > Pat C wants to use primitives based on Longman's dictionaries, but
> > I objected that those terms are too vague, and an enormous amount
> > of work would be needed to make them precise. Therefore, I propose
> > the following approach:
> >
> > 1. OpenCyc is freely available as open source, but Pat objected
> > that it has very few axioms. However, Longman's terms have zero
> > axioms, and they have never been tested for their usefulness in
> > any ontology, certainly not in anything as large as Cyc.
> >
> > 2. Therefore, I recommend that we adopt the OpenCyc terms together
> > with the axioms available in OpenCyc as a "starter set" for
> > developing the Foundation Ontology.
> >
> > 3. But we would also welcome and encourage anybody with different
> > preferences to contribute more terms and theories to the FO.
> >
> > 4. When convenient, those new theories should adopt the same
> > spelling as the terms already in the starter set, but any
> > new terms (taken from Longman's or any other source anyone
> > might prefer) could also be used in those additional theories.
> >
> > 5. The complete hierarchy of theories for the FO would be
> > organized along the lines we've been discussing in these notes.
> >
> > 6. Pat's goal of finding a much smaller set of defining terms
> > (called primitives) could be done in parallel with the
> > development of the FO instead of delaying its development.
> >
> > 7. If and when a good set of primitives has been found useful,
> > a methodology based on them could be promoted for simplifying
> > further ontology development. However, older theories that
> > use the older terms would remain available as long as anyone
> > needs them.
> >
> > I'm suggesting this as a compromise that would begin with a large
> > tested set of terms already organized in a generalization/
> > specialization hierarchy. It would also accommodate new terms
> > that could be added as needed from any source. But if anyone
> > wants to do any immediate implementation today, the OpenCyc
> > terms can be used. Any work done with them would be guaranteed
> > to be supported by the full FO.
> >
> > MW> I think [the FO] is more than just a vocabulary, but I agree
> > > that great care would need to be taken not to introduce into what
> > > I am calling abstract theories axioms that did not contradict say
> > > the 3D and 4D axioms that would be introduced when they were
> > > combined with those theories.
> >
> > I agree. In fact, one advantage of OpenCyc is that it doesn't have
> > all the axioms (AKA old baggage) of full Cyc. That implies that it
> > is more general than Cyc and less likely to have unpleasant
> > "surprises" (AKA inconsistencies).
> >
> > MW> However, having such [abstract theories] would greatly simplify
> > > mapping between say 3D and 4D ontologies. These would I think need
> > > to be carefully designed rather than just picking something up,
> > > since it is casually almost certainly made some upper ontology
> > > assumptions.
> >
> > I agree. Many, if not most of those theories could be based on
> > terms that are already in OpenCyc. In fact, if you just adopt
> > the terms by themselves without any axioms, there is no possibility
> > of an inconsistency. Then any axiom that is added could be tested
> > for consistency with both the 3D and the 4D ontologies (along the
> > lines that I suggested in my previous note).
> >
> > DF> An ontology with a single theory would complicate the idea of
> > > a foundational ontology as an interlingua to which all external
> > > ontologies can be mapped.
> >
> > Yes. That is why I would prefer to use the name Foundation Ontology
> > for the full hierarchy of all the theories in the OOR.
> >
> > DF> Competing external theories could be incorporated by defining new
> > > concepts/relations for the relata of the competing theories (which
> > > map directly to the terms of the source ontology) and then adding
> > > rules relating them with the ostensible "sameAs" terms already in
> > > the foundational ontology.
> >
> > PC> Yes, but I would express the process as "logically specifying
> > > the terms of each extension ontology using only the terms in the
> > > FO" rather than "map directly" since that suggests that the
> > > entities in the extension ontology are already on the FO, which
> > > in general they will not be.
> >
> > I would expect the FO to be completely open-ended so that the
> > number of useful terms would increase indefinitely. There could
> > also be a small subset of recommended defining terms. (I wouldn't
> > even object to calling them "primitives".)
> >
> > But we do have to recognize that many "primitives" may be very
> > underspecified. For example, the term PointInTime should be neutral
> > with respect to a 3D or 4D ontology. For lower-level microtheories,
> > you might have a general theory called Hiking, which would use
> > PointInTime without any dependencies on 4D or 3D. But if there are
> > dependencies, one could have common specializations of Hiking with
> > either of the two upper-level theories to generate the subtheories
> > Hiking4D and Hiking3D.
> >
> > JFS> But if you think of [the FO] as a collection of theories organized
> > >> in a hierarchy, no single theory ever changes. Instead, each
> > >> innovation adds another theory to the hierarchy, which may be a
> > >> generalization, a specialization, a sibling, or a cousin of some
> > >> other theory. You can also compare and combine theories.
> >
> > DF> Agreed. This is part of the reasoning behind Cyc method of
> > > "microtheories" or contexts....
> >
> > PC> And that would be true for the FO and its extensions also. But there
> > > is an additional aspect to the FO as I have proposed it. The CYC
> > > BaseKB is part of every other more specialized microtheory, but it
> > > was not designed as, nor used as, an inventory of basic elements that
> > > is sufficient to specify (as combinations) the intended meanings of
> > > the symbols that are in all of the other linked microtheories. CYC
> > > didn't try that tactic, which could have been very informative. But
> > > a proper test would in any case require that a good number of separate
> > > groups with different applications and viewpoints try to use the same
> > > FO to describe their different domain ontologies.
> >
> > This comment mixes two different goals:
> >
> > 1. A large useful ontology that people can begin using ASAP.
> >
> > 2. A project to determine whether a small subset of terms (called
> > primitives) is sufficient to define everything else and would
> > thereby promote interoperability.
> >
> > Different people may have different priorities. My personal preference
> > is to emphasize #1. I have no objection to anyone who prefers #2, but
> > I would not want to tell people who have a day job that they have to
> > wait until #2 is finished. My recommendation is to start with #1 and
> > let anyone who wants #2 to *extract* some subset from #1 in order to
> > test that hypothesis. If that hypothesis seems to be justified, then
> > the results could be developed into a methodology for using, adapting,
> > and streamlining the much larger resources of #1.
> >
> > But I would never suggest that people who need an ontology today should
> > wait until project #2 is completed. The above proposal lets people
> > start new projects using OpenCyc and rest assured that the FO would
> > continue to support them in the future.
> >
> > JFS> You can think of context as some additional statements S that are
> > >> added to a theory T to specialize it for some particular application.
> >
> > DF> If the context referred to is what Cyc calls a DataMicrotheory,
> > > then the statements added are qualitatively different from those
> > > in the basic theory.
> > >
> > > A context might close T's open world assumption, such that T2 has
> > > a closed world assumption. T and T2, in such a case, would be
> > > different types of theory.
> >
> > That's a good point. It illustrates an important advantage of
> > starting with OpenCyc (or some subset of it). We can take advantage
> > of the 26 years of experience in developing Cyc. We don't have to
> > adopt every one of their decisions, but when we diverge, we should
> > have a good reason for doing so.
> >
> > DF> An FO would need to have a reasonably restrictive generalization
> > > of classes included in any microtheory that is to be mapped to it.
> > > Defining "reasonably restrictive" could be hard, but it seems to me
> > > that SUMO (with extensions) and Cyc both would currently meet this
> > > requirement. Including concepts from UMLS and GoodRelations would
> > > lower the rough lower edge of the directed acyclic graph of classes
> > > in several key areas.
> >
> > I'm all in favor of building on good work that has been done in other
> > systems. We should make sure that the licensing terms are compatible
> > and get explicit permission to use whatever is incorporated in the FO.
> >
> > DF> One question is on what basis should individuals should be included
> > > in an FO. Certainly units of measure should be. Currencies &
> > > countries surely. Cities and every instance in the GeoNames base?
> > > How should the selection of people to add be made? Organizations?
> > > Conceptual works (books, movies, songs, albums, paintings,
> > > constitutions, poems, ...)? Sports and games? Events (disasters,
> > > wars, elections, mergers, ...)? Etc.
> >
> > Those are excellent questions. I would prefer to err on the side of
> > being more inclusive. My suggestion would be to keep the axioms
> > relatively free of individual names, but to have an associated
> > database that would store as much as anyone might find useful.
> >
> > However, there will undoubtedly be many very useful specialized
> > theories, such as US IRS Tax Code for 2010. The most qualified
> > people to develop such a theory would be the IRS. But the FO
> > could maintain pointers to such theories stored and maintained
> > in compatible formats by other organizations.
> >
> > DF> The breadth of coverage of the proposed FO needs to clarified.
> > > Is it to be an ever-expanding set of all terms defined in any
> > > ontology? Should it include all individuals ever defined on
> > > the Semantic Web?
> >
> > Those are important policy decisions. Since the SW is expanding
> > very rapidly, we can't hope to incorporate it into the FO. But we
> > must have interfaces to it that would allow any application to
> > access it as needed. In fact, if we do a good job on the FO,
> > the SemWebbers might take notice and adapt their technology to
> > facilitate sharing in both directions.
> >
> > DF> Or could there be a basic, relatively fixed, FO to which an
> > > expanding number of contextually restricted, but still centralized,
> > > ontologies are related? I could see such for brand-name products,
> > > GeoNames, UMLS, IMDB, GeneBase, etc.
> >
> > PC> The FO itself should try to include all primitives that are used
> > > by more than a small set of specific domain ontologies, and only
> > > those non-primitive elements that are needed for ease of use and are
> > > non-controversial. Primitives required by domain ontologies should
> > > also be maintained, but as part of a domain extension.
> >
> > The goal of getting a useful FO ASAP implies that we should start
> > with a much larger set of terms than Pat has in mind. But that may
> > be an advantage. The goal of extracting a smaller number of defining
> > terms can be guided by usage patterns. Those terms that are most
> > widely used would be prime candidates. The other terms could be
> > redefined in terms of them.
> >
> > I would expect an FO committee to be similar (in some ways) to the
> > W3C. It would define formats, guidelines, policies, etc., and
> > encourage other groups to adopt them and make their work compatible.
> >
> > 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|