Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> A response on just one comment from Doug F:
>
> [PC] > One principle I thought would advance
>
>>> collaborative work was to keep the working ontology as small as
>>>
>> possible. Using all of OpenCyc - even 20,000 terms - could boggle any
>>
> potential
>
>>> contributor before the project begins. But this is still worth
>>>
>> exploring.
>>
>>
> [Doug Foxvog] > If a major point is to be able to map to any user ontology,
> we will
>
>> need more terms than that.
>>
>>
> If we are going to create and store the logical specifications of the
> terms in every ontology that is linked to the FO (or consider those as part
> of the FO), certainly, many more than 20,000 will be needed - and
> correspondingly more time. But the principle that I had hoped would make
> the project more feasible is not to *include* every ontology element in the
> FO itself, but to leave them in the domain or linked ontologies. The effort
> on gaining agreement among the participants would focus only on those more
> basic elements that are needed for *translation* among the domain ontologies
> - those would prima facie be the elements needed for the FO. Now, John has
> suggested that the meaning of "Foundation Ontology" be expanded to include
> everything linked to the common base (I think there already is a name for
> that - the "lattice of theories"). No problem - I don't care about names of
> things, just their meanings. I have suggested that if that is the way the
> term "FO" will be used, then we can distinguish a "core" Foundation Ontology
> which would have all of the identified primitives, and perhaps some other
> elements as well. Those are the elements that are in common among more
> than a few domains. I am not sure that there are more than 10,000 of those,
> and that was what I was referring to.
>
From recent discussions, it appears that there might be several cores
that are equally valid and useful but not compatible.
This is not particularly convenient but reality is not obliged to be
convenient. (01)
It does not seem particularly helpful to suppress this fact. it may in
fact be very helpful to describe these alternatives and develop a set of
consistent terms that can be used to support higher levels.
> The question that has concerned me in considering the need for
> interoperability is the issue of what has to be **generally agreed to** by a
> large community of participants. Certainly the elements in some domain,
> even one like medicine that has a large number of potential users, do not
> have to be of concern to all other ontology builders. My focus on
> primitives has been in response to the practical issue of how to minimize
> what needs to be agreed to by the whole community of users of the FO. If
> the FO is to be the whole lattice of linked ontologies, then the need for
> *agreement* may merely shift to the "core FO".
>
> This is all an immensely practical issue. IF others are comfortable
> starting with an ontology of 20,000-60,000 elements, and we can find a tool
> that perspicuously displays that ontology (should we use the OpenCyc system
> itself?) that could work. My own approach to using an FO is to treat it as
> a language, and try to grasp the basic structure - grammar and basic
> vocabulary. Anyone who can, say, master 60,000 Chinese characters plus
> grammar in a few months may find working through a 60,000 element ontology
> as a spare-time project to be no problem. It is beyond my capability. But
> then John has also said it is highly modular. I am willing to be convinced,
> but I had thought that the big problem was how to relate all the existing
> modules to each other, rather than how to expand or use the modules.
>
This is a really critical point. The modularity of the ontology will be
important. From my reading of the discussion (which may be somewhat
naive), it appears that there will be sets of terms that are believed or
asserted to be internally compatible that may overlap with other sets
(not in namespaces but in reality) that are not compatible.
The potential users will need to know which sets are based on each view
of the universe. Documentation of the underlying philosophical view of
the universe will be important for those looking to base their
applications on a particular set. (02)
> As John has presented it, there should be room within such a project for
> diverse goals and viewpoints. I am still concerned that the starting point
> needs to be comprehensible enough not to scare away potential participants.
> So, let us consider what, concretely will be the starting point: ontology,
> visualization tool, reasoner, and other things. Does the intention to start
> with the whole OpenCyc mean that we should commit to using the whole OpenCyc
> system?
>
>
The tools will be critical since potential users will have to be able to
navigate the terms and relationships to decide if the candidate
ontologies are going to provide an appropriate base for the problem that
they are trying to solve. If this is too difficult or time-consuming, it
will be faster to develop a smaller custom set of terms that the
application developer can assert is consistent and relevant to the
problem at hand. This will defeat the purpose of the exercise. (03)
> Pat
>
> 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
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|