[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:19:27 -0500
Message-id: <4B8D64BF.6030706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Jawit, Sean, and Chris,    (01)

Case histories of what works and what was tried but found wanting
are very important.  Details, summaries, or at least references
would be very useful.    (02)

JK quoting SB> We know from data modelling that there are some twenty
 > to thirty types of data model incompatibility, most of which
 > are, in principle, not resolvable. I do not see that these
 > ncompatibilities have been solved by ontologies.    (03)

There are many kinds of incompatibilities that cannot be resolved
by any method.  Ontologies can often help, but they're not magic,
and the same kinds of information have been gathered with many
different methodologies.    (04)

One reason why I'm underwhelmed by much of the current ontology work
is that people have been gathering the same or similar information
since the 1950s for computer applications.  And as I mentioned in an
earlier note, Aristotle and his buddies were doing the same kinds of
things much earlier.    (05)

JK> Is there a document or web page somewhere that presents these
 > data model incompatiblities?
 > Ideally, I would like to see something that tells me how to recognized
 > the parts of each data model that are incompatible with some other
 > part of different data model.    (06)

JFS>> I would call the stilted English of ISO 19526 a controlled NL...
 >> I would urge them to test it by automated means to verify the
 >> mapping to logic.  If any errors are detected, the controlled
 >> NL could be revised by semi-automated means.    (07)

CP> I believe something similar was done (Matthew will know better)...
 > Ian and I discussed something similar for IDEAS, he will remember
 > whether it was implemented.    (08)

Documentation, summaries, or references would be very useful.    (09)

CP> Of course, from an audit point of view, it would be useful to
 > check the automatically generated text.    (010)

It's more than just auditing.  It cam be an important development
and debugging tool, since everybody, even professional logicians,
can read and write their native language faster than any formal
notation.  (Of course, some qualifications are needed, since most
people can read '17+2=19' much faster than the word form.)    (011)

John    (012)

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    (013)

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