[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:36:45 -0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <4363.>
Pat C raises the issue of achieving high accuracy in automatic mapping of
ontologies to an FO.  I suggest that this would not be possible.  Even if
most terms are mapped reasonably, other terms might not be.  One would
want manual verification.    (01)

Even if a mapper creates reasonable mappings between terms, the boundary
conditions are likely not to be exact.  But the local ontology might not
really care about boundary conditions for the non-leaf nodes it its
ontology.    (02)

One has to consider the purpose of a given ontology.  For many uses the
exact boundaries of concepts are not important.  A company selling products
-- furniture, tools, electronic goods, etc. -- will be selling a set of
specific (often brand-name) products, but define them as members of broader
categories (chair, electric drill, telephone) for which there are
ontological terms defined in different ontologies whose exact boundary
conditions vary.  The locally defined terms would be subclasses of any of
the similar, but not precisely identical, more general classes of products.    (03)

One advantage of an FO would be that people who want an ontology would be
likely to use appropriate parts of the existing FO than to create a new
ontology from scratch.  They may create new subclasses (new subtypes of
existing products), or more specialized relations, but use the FO for
the majority of their ontology.    (04)

-- doug    (05)

PatC wrote:    (06)

> I emphasize that the goals of mapping between domain ontologies and using
> the FO are not incompatible, I just believe that there are things you can
> do
> with an FO that are not possible or not practical by trying to map among
> multiple ontologies without generating an FO.   You seem to think that
> specific mappings will be adequate.  But I am especially concerned with
> information on the internet for which the ontology has not been mapped to
> yours.   The FO covers that case automatically, I canít see how specific
> mappings can.
> More details on specifics below.    (07)

> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>  ...
> [[PC]] What do
> you do for information posted in the internet, assuming that you have the
> ontology the posting group  uses?   How accurate would an automatic
> mapping
> be under those circumstances?  The merging process for different
> ontologies
> can be automatic and accurate if the elements of domain ontologies are
> logically specified only from elements from a common FO.  But I cannot
> visualize how any automatic mapping can achieve any level of accuracy
> without the use of a common standard of meaning that can express all the
> elements in the ontologies to be mapped.  I would be fascinated if you
> could
> show an example of a mapping between independently developed
> practical-sized
> ontologies (non-toy ontologies, used in some application) that can give a
> mapping accuracy of at least 99% for both classes and relations.  Or at
> least outline a procedure that you think can do that.    (08)

> PatC    (09)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (010)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (011)

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    (012)

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