|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:30:10 -0500|
[PC]Thanks for presenting the contrary position.
Two important things.
(1) it is not _*the*_ contrary position, it is simply _*an*_ alternative.
(2) you have mis-characterized the alternative presented, nowhere am I talking about hand mappings between the target ontologies directly.
I have no idea where you concluded that i was advocating mappings directly between two particular ontologies.... If you read my response, I was talking about ontologies being plugged into a referent ontologies in the repository. Not direct one-one.
For example, my manufacturing ontology need not plug into another manufacturing one directly; instead, the process modules would map into a family of process ontologies (they need not be logically consistent). Similarly for agents, actions etc. It is using the hub-spoke model. No silly single to single ontology shenanigans here. However, no decreed FO is necessary either. You pick whichever modules are a best fit given that you know a bit about your domain and what is relevant to know. In effect, whatever referent family of ontologies you pick will be your de facto "FO" if you wanna call it that. You need not specify a global FO beforehand. You can try, and it might or might not be helpful. It certainly wouldn't hurt for someone to try.
But to claim that an FO is absolutely essentially to largescale interoperability is ridiculous.
The Euzenat paper is dealing with Description Logic ontologies and the types of mappings available there. Since most of the semantics are external to the system of representation, you are forced to indirectly, implicitly try to derive mappings. Hence the need for a confidence measure (cause you're never really sure what was intended). In our paper, we don't need the confidence measure, as the confidence is generated from the axioms / mapping. So talking about a confidence measure when talking about mappings between ontologies with first order expressivity is largely superfluous.
I agree the two approaches aren't conflicting, i just wanted to emphasize that an FO is NOT NECESSARY for large scale interoperability. It might be useful, but it is not necessary.
Rest of the responses are inline.
This paragraph makes me think you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. See above. The FO doesn't cover anything automatically. If it is somehow broad enough to cover all possible intended meanings, then it simply means that a mapping might be generated. You still have to generate the mapping. You are simply mapping into an FO instead of other modules in the repository. It changes nothing.
PSL and OntoSTIT come to mind. In fact, every core hierarchy in COLORE at the moment requires no "primitive" from more fundamental concepts for practical purposes. If I want to use PSL, I do not need to go and find an upper ontology to plug it into. It is good to go.
In COLORE, there are 80 ontologies organized into about 11 families of ontologies. There are many many many more families of ontologies, the ones currently included hardly cover the breadth of what's expressible. I would hardly call ontologies for Duration, Temporal, Processes, Geometries, Orderings etc toy ontologies.
If you wanted, you _could_ attach each to an FO, but as they are now, they are all agnostic about many of the issues an FO forces you to take a stand on. However, feel free to see if you can determine a set of primitives that unify them! This is why COLORE exists, so people can test out ideas given a repository of connected ontologies...
There are N hubs, because their views are irreconcilable, if they were reconcilable, then they could be merged. This is, I suspect is one of the issues Pat H (and John) have also been going on about. There likely will never be a single view which accommodates every possible perspective.
The hubs are connected via partial mappings. If two people are plugged in using two distinct hubs, then there may or may not be complete fidelity in message passing available. All that is needed for interoperability is to know where and how you agree and disagree. The mappings between the hubs specify agreement and disagreement.
Sure, if you can merge two go for it. I am not sure what the point of this paragraph is. This horse carcass is now a skeleton, let's stop beating it. All you need to know is if they agree, if they don't fully agree, then you need to know where they don't agree as well. Once this is done, you have enough information to accurately pass messages between the two.
If we're talking about ontological meaning, any set of primitives that are general enough to accommodate most views will likely be a single label name. I.e. primitive = Time. No axioms, because they diverge immediately. Fine, if you wanna call this a primitive, so be it. It's utility is minimal from a logical perspective. Anyway, maybe you'll end up with a useful axiom or two. I've expressed this point before and there's nothing new year. I will admit that it is hard to say for sure that this will definitely happen without trying, so go for it. I hope you end up with more than labels!
This paragraph makes me believe you have not understood what I was saying... See the initial post and the comments above the inline ones. I don't assume the metadata exists. If it does, then we can traverse the metadata and use information from there to aid us. If the metadata doesn't exist, then you'll have to generate them. This is independent of whether an FO exists or not.
Again, confidence measures are superfluous in the context of FOL where the relevant semantics are available. If you have underspecified entities, then you might have to resort to such measures, otherwise you can draw on model theoretic and proof theoretic results to guarantee the mapping. Yes, you can find my thesis in the UofT library ( https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/17512 ). I should note that the vocabulary used for semantic mappings in the thesis is underdeveloped. It is now grounded in much more accessible mathematics and there have been significant revisions to the procedure for the semantic mapping module and to the algorithm for axiom generation.
This is an important point. There are no widely accepted definitions / guidelines as to what modular means in the context of ontologies. SUMO is occasionally claimed to be modular, we've had difficulty identifying it as such. It would be helpful to agree on what we mean when we say, X is "modular." For an example of a well developed modular ontology written in CLIF, check out PSL ( http://www.mel.nist.gov/psl/ ).
Nope, this result extends to ontologies that are also not "hand-mapped". If I have an ontology specified with at least first order expressive, I can trawl the repository and find the best modules which map that description. If I want, I can restrict my search space to a particular type of ontology families - i.e. the information posted is about energy consumption in houses, i will search the family of mathematical ontologies and really any family of ontology that is related to that energy or human behaviour domains.
That's really all there is to it. If my automatic engine finds some mapping, then great. If I want to use stronger results such as representation and characterization theorems, right now no computer is good enough to produce these automatically, except for the most trivial cases. So for those stronger results, human intervention is required. However, the automated mappings will have identified a weaker form of these results for me already and I can start exchanging certain types of messages with 100% confidence.
All of this is independent of the existence of an FO. It *might* be the case that the internet ontology best fits into an FO. Regardless, the mapping would generate a type of interpretation from the target into the referent (whether FO or other). Computing today is incapable of generating representation theorems or characterization theorems, so i'd still need to do that with human intervention. Whether the mapping is into an FO or other referent ontology does not change this fact.
Sure, check out the FOIS 2010 paper (www.reseed.ca/ali 2nd paper), a mapping is derived between a very common mereotopology (used to specify Part-Whole and Connection relations), and Stone Lattices, a result from mathematics.
Another example from that same paper: modules of PSL map into graph theory, linear orderings etc. All of these are non toy examples. Pretty simple. No FO needed. Accuracy in both is 100%... Though i'm only guessing at what you mean regarding accuracy. For RCC -- Stone, it is 100%. For PSL, using reducibility as defined there, we know with 100% accuracy, what each of its modular components map into.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Matthew West|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Matthew West|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|