ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontolog

To: "'Patrick Durusau'" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum]'" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Partridge <partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:04:24 -0000
Message-id: <001101cba37b$db10b040$913210c0$@googlemail.com>
Hi Patrick,    (01)

I think you are trying to make a suggestion that people are ontologically aware 
into one that a particular ontology should be used.    (02)

Your extract seems to be making the same point as ChrisM original mail, that 
people need to be ontologically aware - in this case aware of their ontological 
commitments.
This seems to imply that you think ontological awareness is a good thing.
And isn't training one way to make them aware?    (03)

So I am not really sure what you disagree with.    (04)

Chris    (05)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 December 2010 14:09
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: '[ontolog-forum]'
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
> Ontology Technical Standard
> 
> Chris,
> 
> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 13:15 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > I was not seeing that the issue was with whether the standard had any
> particular conformance requirements.
> > It was more about whether the individuals drafting it had the requisite
> training in the right areas.
> >
> 
> You capture the issue with "...had the requisite training in the right areas."
> 
> That is presuming a particular approach as the "correct" one from the
> outset.
> 
> > The original issue was that there was a confusion between classes
> (types/universals) and individuals (elements/particulars).
> > This seems to me a confusion about what things actually exist in the real
> world - in the domain being modelled - and is unhealthy.
> > If people had the right training they would be much less likely to make this
> kind of mistake.
> >
> 
> That is only a "mistake" from a certain point of view. It may be an
> unnecessary distinction from another point of view.
> 
> You prove my point with "...a confusion about what things actually exist in
> the real world...." which is certainly a point of view issue.
> 
> > This seems to me a separate issue from whether formal logic should be
> made a requirement for standards.
> >
> 
> Not really. This is a marketing issue that operates under the guise of "..the
> real world..." sort of arguments.
> 
> One that seeks to market a particular method of modeling as the "correct"
> one.
> 
> > PD> there isn't some abstract requirement that all modeling projects
> conform to formal logic.
> > Agreed - and very few do at the moment.
> 
> > Also, I would argue (and I think ChrisM does below as well) that having
> merely a good grounding in formal logic by itself is insufficient to build up
> the competence to avoid these kinds of errors - hence ChrisM's long list.
> >
> 
> Consider an earlier statement on the use of logic for knowledge
> representation:
> 
> > Logic, rules, frames, and so on, embody a viewpoint on the kinds of
> > things that are important in the world. Logic, for example, involves a
> > (fairly minimal) commitment to viewing the world in terms of
> > individual enti- ties and relations between them. Rule-based systems
> > view the world in terms of attribute- object-value triples and the
> > rules of plausible inference that connect them, while frames have us
> > thinking in terms of prototypical objects.
> > Thus, each of these representation tech- nologies supplies its own
> > view of what is important to attend to, and each suggests, conversely,
> > that anything not easily seen in these terms may be ignored. This
> > suggestion is, of course, not guaranteed to be correct because
> > anything ignored can later prove to be relevant. But the task is
> > hopeless in princi- ple—every representation ignores something about
> > the world; hence, the best we can do is start with a good guess. The
> > existing repre- sentation technologies supply one set of guesses about
> > what to attend to and what to ignore. Thus, selecting any of them
> > involves a degree of ontological commitment: The selec- tion will have
> > a significant impact on our per- ception of, and approach to, the task
> > and on our perception of the world being modeled.
> 
> What is Knowledge Representation? by Randall Davis, Howward Shrobe, and
> Peter Szolovits
> 
> 
> > Have a good Xmas.
> >
> 
> And you as well!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 24 December 2010 12:34
> > > To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA:
> > > The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
> > >
> > > -1.
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > The question is whether SOA or any other modeling effort has
> > > conformance to the dictates of formal logic as a requirement?
> > >
> > > If not, and the modeling effort meets the needs of its community, I
> > > don't see a problem.
> > >
> > > Or to put it differently, there isn't some abstract requirement that
> > > all modeling projects conform to formal logic. Some will, some
> > > won't, most will fall somewhere in between.
> > >
> > > Hope you are having a great holiday season!
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 00:07 +0000, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Though of course one can argue about the details of the
> > > > ontological curriculum.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:ontolog-forum- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Christopher Menzel
> > > > > Sent: 23 December 2010 19:36
> > > > > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA:
> > > > > The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Research wrote:
> > > > > > Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
> > > > > > - Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is
> > > > > > rubbish for many reasons" but that "there is some value in this
> work".
> > > > > > - I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
> > > > > > - a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling
> > > > > > errors and shortcomings...
> > > > > > On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum
> > > > > > pattern of spiralling away from the initial point and
> > > > > > exploring fine modelling points - all good in its own way, and
> > > > > > a reflection of the breadth of opinion and ideas of the group, which
> is great.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, *my* point wasn't really to comment on a modeling
> > > > > error or explore fine modeling points, although I probably
> > > > > obscured the point by being explicit about the details. My
> > > > > actual point was that large,
> > > > > well- publicized and (in some cases) well-funded ontologies are
> > > > > being
> > > > constructed
> > > > > by folks who are still confused about the most elementary points
> > > > > of logic and knowledge representation -- notably, in this case,
> > > > > the difference between instance and subclass, a confusion the KR
> > > > > community straightened out almost as soon as it cropped up over
> > > > > 35 years ago.  For someone tasked with constructing an ontology
> > > > > to be confused about it in this day and age
> > > > is
> > > > > like an engineer tasked with building a bridge to be confused
> > > > > about, say,
> > > > the
> > > > > difference between force and torque.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there is still a pretty pervasive idea (despite regular
> > > > > rejoinders
> > > > from
> > > > > the likes of John Sowa, Michael Grüninger, Pat Hayes, Leo Obrst,
> > > > > etc) that building quality ontologies doesn't require any sort
> > > > > of special technical training, just a clear head, a bit of
> > > > > common sense, and a copy of Protege
> > > > (an
> > > > > excellent and useful tool, let me hasten to add).  To the
> > > > > contrary, at a minimum, a competent, well-educated ontological
> > > > > engineer must have a mastery of first-order logic and related
> > > > > systems like modal logic (of
> > > > which
> > > > > description logic can be considered a variety) as well as a deep
> > > > familiarity
> > > > > with the history of knowledge representation and KR systems.
> > > > > Broad knowledge of the history of philosophy as well as
> > > > > contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of language would not
> > > > > only sharpen analytical skills and provide a rich source of
> > > > > ontological exploration to draw upon, but would also prevent
> > > > > ontological engineers from wasting time reinventing the wheel
> > > > > (typically with an
> > > inferior design).
> > > > >
> > > > > Until ontological engineers, like engineers of every other other
> > > > > stripe,
> > > > can be
> > > > > assumed to have a well-defined baseline of knowledge and a basic
> > > > > technical skills, an endless repetition of elementary modeling
> > > > > errors and, consequently, a stream of (at best) unreliable and
> > > > > (at
> > > > > worst) incoherent ontologies are to be expected, and skepticism
> > > > > about the usefulness of ontologies will (justifiably) persist.
> > > > > We trust every new bridge that is
> > > > built to
> > > > > hold us up (in part) because of the knowledge and skill of the
> > > > > engineers
> > > > who
> > > > > designed it; sound bridges that perform their function reliably
> > > > > are the
> > > > norm,
> > > > > not the exception.  Why should it be any different for ontologies?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Menzel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > > > _
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> >
> >    (06)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

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