[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:02:07 -0000
Message-id: <4b7e538a.1c05d00a.266d.02dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Pat,    (01)

I have a slightly different interpretation, but I think it is one that has a
proper place for what at heart I think you are interested in.    (02)

>   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.      (03)

MW: The lattice of theories certainly includes "life the universe and
everything" and actually lots of other stuff too that makes no sense at all.
I agree this is not what you are interested in.    (04)

MW: You may recall that in a couple of posts I have been talking about what
I called "abstract theories" being theories that were independent of 3D/4D
(for example) but could be combined with either, and of course 3D and 4D
themselves. I think this is where your ambition of a "Foundation Ontology"
properly lies in terms of being the elements that other ontologies can be
built out of. The difference I see from what I have been interpreting your
proposal to be is that it seems to me that you have been proposing a
specific upper ontology as part of your FO. What I am suggesting you develop
here would not have this, but would include what was effectively the
abstract terms needed by any upper level ontology. These could be abstracted
from the existing work available.    (05)

MW: Other things you would need to do to support interoperability would be
to develop mappings between major competing theories, such as (but  far from
limited to) 3D/4D.    (06)

MW: Is this compatible with your vision?    (07)

Regards    (08)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (09)

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>