ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] SemanticEnterprise Architecture-Interoperability?

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:13:06 -0700
Message-id: <20100911021317.5182F138D07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Mike,

 

Good luck with the ontologies, and it probably is a reasonable thing to try.  Just don’t expect the users to see that same one meaning in the data, which I think will be surprising if you analyze it much.  If you can then disambiguate the responses to the monocular ontology O0, call it R1, you can always adapt that to create O1.  In a second iteration, you get R2 and produce O2.  Repeat until breakdown.  That even handles induction.  

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Bennett
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:10 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] SemanticEnterprise Architecture-Interoperability?

 

Rich,

That is exactly why we employ ontologies. A business which tries to manage data terms directly at the level of a logical data model (as so many do) will suffer from the problems you describe. An ontology gives a formal representation of the contents of that data model in a form which can be understood, validated, updated and most importantly owned by the business domain experts. That is the role of a conceptual model, and that role is fulfilled, for data, by an ontology.

Where the thinking caps come in, is in coming up with new and better ways of representing the conceptual model in a way that the business can view and understand, without compromising on the formal logic of the model - for example by using controlled natural language or by devising diagrams and reports which can be readily understood. It's worth keeping in mind however, that since an ontology is framed in terms of logic and not technology, most experts in any business domain are educated and intelligent enough to understand technology-neutral, logical concepts when they are presented to them in a consistent way, more than we sometimes give them credit for. The main thing is that they realise they are not being asked to review a technical data model design.

Mike

On 10/09/2010 21:22, Rich Cooper wrote:

Hi Segun,

 

Reading your referenced URL, I found this salient reminder:

Darke & Shanks (1999, p.20) concluded that:

“A major problem with corporate data models is that they are difficult to understand. Their abstract, generic concepts are unfamiliar to both business users and IS professionals, and remote from their local organizational contexts.  Empirical studies indicate that many organizations have encountered significant problems in building and using a corporate data model”

That simple fact is WIDELY known in the business world, which has to deal with shortcomings of database models that are difficult and expensive to modify.  Data dictionaries seem to be useful only to the data modeling staff, which is steeped in the specific dictionary of that single enterprise.  

 

It is very seldom discussed in the academic world, and I certainly don’t see the classes of XML descended semantic tools in use now as addressing it properly.  Its time for some thinking caps. 

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of segun alayande
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:55 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture-Interoperability?

 

I am inclined to support Rich's view below. A question I have always struggled to answer is: When is a Conceptual Model an Ontology in practical terms?.
It has been observed that academic discussions have often ignored the real progress made in practice (http://www.inconcept.com/JCM/March2004/Hitchman3.html).
 

Segun

07932651840

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 


From: rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:39:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture-Interoperability?

Hi Patrick,

 

Thanks for your well thought through opinions, though I disagree on practical grounds with your conclusions.  Here is Google's best response to the "define:ontology" request I gave it:

 

•In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of the knowledge by a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that domain, and may be used to describe the domain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

 

Nothing in that defintion, or in any other that was returned, required a singular meaning, or unambiguous interpretation of the term ontology.  There is no reference that ontologies "have to have one meaning per tem", though that seems to be the common refrain in our conversation here.  

 

The people on this list are more deeply cerebral about ontologies than whoever defined google's responses, but I disagree that the COMMON meaning of the term ontology requires UNAMBIGUOUS meanings.  I think that is because humans, which are the engines that process ontologies, are not consistent, complete or careful about the words we use.  

 

Only the very simplest "ontologies", such as Dublin Core, have any real chance of exhibiting a singular meaning for each phrase.  I am in the minority here in believing my postulate, though, and there are some great theoretical ontologists here who strongly feel that ontology is a 100% logical mathematized rendering of human concepts.  So you might be better off following the mathematized theories if your goal is to write papers and research reports.  When it comes to real markets, this stuff just won't work, in my humble opinion, any more than logical inference, which was supposed to change the world back in 1980 with the Japanese Fifth Generation plan to build fully logic based computers.  

 

Ontology is a great idea - knowledge is more useful when it is organized.  But to think it is semantically singular is simply misled and unrealistic, IMHO.  Ontologies will ALWAYS be "heterogeneous" as you put it if they are intended to be used by humans, even in the input/output GUI way.  

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:27 PM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture-Interoperability?

 

Doug F is right, the WordNet is not an ontology; it was organized according

to "psycholinguistic principles" and the synsets, though organized in a

hierarchy by "hypernym" and "hyponym" links, do not form a fully accurate

inheritance hierarchy (though they often are correctly ordered), and it

therefore cannot be used for accurate reasoning.  Nevertheless, it has been

used as the standard for word disambiguation for a number of year now by the

Natural Language Processing community, who recognize its shortcomings.  Some

efforts have been made to reorganize or ontologized the WordNet, but they

are very preliminary.

   As part of the COSMO project I am conducting, I am trying to find WordNet

synsets that are the same as or close to the logically defined concepts in

the COSMO hierarchy.  It takes a lot of effort, in part because the WordNet

synsets are often heterogeneous - they include distinguishably different

conceptual components, as evidenced by the usage examples given in the

WordNet glosses.  So a "mapping" of any ontology (which has been done for

SUMO and CYC) will not result in identifying WordNet synsets that can always

be identified with logically definable concepts that can be used for

reasoning.

   The solution is, I believe, regrettably, to essentially redo the WordNet

and create a version that has a more accurate inheritance hierarchy at its

base, with the mappings to words that may (in different contexts) label

those concepts, to form a WordNet-like lexical resource that can be used for

NLP.  Unfortunately, because most NLP these days is statistical and requires

tagged texts for training the parsers, this will also require re-tagging

texts to provide training material.  There are a number of issues involved

in such an effort (for example, some words may need to be represented by

functions or procedural code, rather than FOL ontology elements).  Even

though the examples of WordNet and existing ontologies will make the work

easier and faster, there is still considerable effort involved.  How long it

will take before enough interest is developed to ensure adequate funding is

quite uncertain - but I think this kind of work is essential to begin the

approach to human-level language understanding.  My own efforts with the

COSMO will result only in a WordNet-like resource that covers the basic

language - 2000 or so concepts, fewer than twice that many words.

  But such a resource, if adopted by ontology users who want to

interoperate, can serve not only as a resource for some basic NLP but also

as the "Primitive Inventory Foundation Ontology" (PIFO) that will allow

translation among local ontology dialects that are mapped to the PIFO.

 

Pat

 

Patrick Cassidy

MICRA, Inc.

908-561-3416

cell: 908-565-4053

cassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-

> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog

> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:20 AM

> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture -

> Interoperability?

>

> On Wed, September 8, 2010 19:37, Rich Cooper said:

> > Doug,

> >

> > But isn't WordNet the ontology being used, if synsets are the columns?

>

> WordNet is not an ontology.

>

> I was using David's terminology, where he started describing "something

> like unique synsets" to refer to meanings which can be expressed by

> multiple words and phrases and then went on to use the word.

>

> > WN may not be a very complex ontology,

>

> Again, it isn't one.

>

> > but WN itself could be one NLP disambiguation source,

>

> True.

>

> > and where synsets CAN have unique meanings, it is

> > one to one with interpretants.

>

> My understanding of interpretants is that each interpreter has its own.

>

> > Where a synset itself is ambiguously

> > interpreted, you would need special handling events or other method

> for

> > further disambiguating.  And still further, you would need to have

> > identified an interpretER to get that far into the disambiguation.

>

> I don't see that you need to identify a human interpreter yet.

>

> -- doug foxvog

>

> > Suggestions?

> > -Rich

> >

> > Sincerely,

> > Rich Cooper

> > EnglishLogicKernel.com

> > Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

> > 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug

> foxvog

> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:22 PM

> > To: [ontolog-forum]

> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture

> > -Interoperability?

> >

> > On Wed, September 8, 2010 17:57, Rich Cooper said:

> >> David,

> >>

> >> I think he is referring to something like unique synsets, which have

> a

> >> single meaning, but which can have multiple word instantiations, a

> la

> >> WordNet.

> >

> > Except that WordNet synsets do not have unique meanings.  The

> multiple

> > words in a synset have similar meanings.  I am referring to terms in

> an

> > ontology, each of which has a unique meaning, and which may be

> expressed

> > in a natural language in multiple ways.

> >

> >> That arrow runs from the single meaning (synset) toward the

> >> {words}, not the other way around.  Reverse that arrow and you have

> the

> >> single interpretation that can be actually emulated; at the other

> end,

> >> you

> >> have words that point to several synsets which may alternatively

> >> interpret

> >> them, so the direction of the arrow is the critical concept I think.

> >

> > It seems to me, both that an individual word has multiple meanings

> and

> > that individual meanings can be expressed by multiple words or

> phrases.

> > The arrow direction would depend upon the relationship indicated

> between

> > the entities referenced by the head and tail of the arrow.

> >

> > Below the discussion leaves ontologies (if it was really there) and

> moves

> > to a discussion of enterprise architecture databases.

> >

> >> So the enterprise architecture database should have columns that are

> >> unique

> >> synsets (in effect) of enterprise meaning.  Each synset could have

> one

> >> row

> >> for every word that instantiates it, perhaps one row for every word

> that

> >> can be interpreted with that synset as interpretant.

> >

> > Are you saying that each column has a different set of rows?

> >

> > Or are you suggesting a matrix of synsets with a row for each word in

> > the synset?  Since there would be a lot more synsets than words in a

> > synset, perchance it would be better to have the rows being synsets

> and

> > the columns being words in the synset.

> >

> >> Which brings up the problem of representing multiple interpreters.

> >> Would

> >> each synset have one set of interpretant rows for each interpreter?

> It

> >> seems like the only conclusion unless you want everyone in the

> >> enterprise

> >> to use words the same way (unlikely to be successful).

> >

> > It could be useful to define contexts in which given words have

> different

> > meanings.  Then the interpreter would choose their context (payroll,

> > sales, etc.) for their current task.  Separate rows for each

> interpreter

> > would not be called for.

> >

> > Even if restricted to database tables, if one used a column after a

> word

> > to encode the set of contexts in which it was used one wouldn't need

> to

> > repeat rows (or tables) for each context.

> >

> > == doug f

> >

> >> -Rich

> >>

> >> Sincerely,

> >> Rich Cooper

> >> EnglishLogicKernel.com

> >> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

> >> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

> >>

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David

> Eddy

> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:24 PM

> >> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]

> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture

> >> -Interoperability?

> >>

> >> Doug -

> >>

> >> On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:12 PM, doug foxvog wrote:

> >>

> >>> a Semantic Web needs ontologies of terms with fixed meanings

> >>

> >> Is this saying that a term (word, phrase, acronym, abbreviation,

> >> whatever) can only have a single meaning?

> >>

> >> What did I miss here?

> >>

> >>

> >> As I have observed before & will undoubtedly observe again...

> >>

> >> George Miller's "Ambiguous Words"   http://www.kurzweilai.net/

> >> ambiguous-words    offers an average of 10 meanings per (real) word.

> >>

> >> My dictionary of largely acronyms (but where's the line between

> >> acronym & real word... I don't have a clue) finds some 34 meanings

> >> per term/word.  Whittling that down to 1 meaning per term is going

> to

> >> be tough.

> >>

> >> ___________________

> >> David Eddy

> >> deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >>

> >> 781-455-0949

> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              781-455-

> 0949      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

> > begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              781-455-

> 0949      end_of_the_sk

> > ype_highlighting

> >>

> >>

> >> _________________________________________________________________

> >> 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

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> _________________________________________________________________

> >> 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

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> > =============================================================

> > doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org

> >

> > "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.

> > =============================================================

> >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> =============================================================

> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org

>

> "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.

> =============================================================

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> 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

>

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

 


_________________________________________________________________ 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

 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
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
 




-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd. 
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068

_________________________________________________________________
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>