Hi Pavithra,
You wrote below:
It is possible to have
pieces of ontology formalized called signatures and make them reusable. Some
examples are "Addresses " vCard etc..
The way addresses are written is based on USPS requirement and it is formal in United States.
So rest of USA
can follow it as USPS address format or what ever.
Yes, there are many, many meme containing
strings (addresses, line items, comments, diagnoses, real estate title descriptions
…) commonly expressed in unstructured text fields which could be teased
apart using signature analysis, among other invariant detectors. These
strings are stored in cookies, forms, questionnaires, reviews, web databases,
and in everyday database columns.
These meaningful domains are filled with
data that are oddly, complexly structured, so a formal approach to analyzing
them, other than simple sequences, hasn’t been attractively cost
effective in the bad old days. This is changing. I think the potential
value from unstructured text columns will become more important as the BI and
CRM markets grow saturated with simpler technology approaches.
That is one of the reasons why I wrote my
patent. You might want to follow your intuition for this trend also.
-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 Pavithra
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011
8:45 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I
ontologise, you ontologise,we all mess up... (was: Modeling a money
transferring scenario,or any of a range of similar dialogues)
|
Ontology represents conceptual information modeling
which is necessary for computerization.
I think KM and CLIF and OWL people are confusing everyone because it did not
work for them some where. I question the motivation. ( period) ! I
think people should address what does not work .. so lessons can be learnt.
It is impossible to have generic Ontology for whole domain that works
everywhere. It is possible to have pieces of ontology formalized
called signatures and make them reusable.. Some examples are
"Addresses " vCard etc.. The way addresses
are written is based on USPS requirement and it is formal in United States.
So rest of USA
can follow it as USPS address format or what ever.
However one has to have high level conceptual model or
classification of some sort to know where these pieces of standardized
signature ontology fit in to the big picture, so they can be used with
appropriate context and can be made re usable and interoperable.
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up...
(was: Modeling a money transferring scenario, or any of a range of similar
dialogues)
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 11:20 PM
+1
I was about to write almost exactly what Ed wrote below. :-)
There is a strong philosophical *intuition* that a set of OWL or CLIF
statements is only a *representation* and that an *ontology* is the
information such a representation expresses. However, like Ed, I don't think
that notion of an ontology is scientifically useful. What, exactly, *is* an
ontology on this approach? What distinguishes one such ontology from another?
What, exactly, is the "expressing" relation between a
representation and an ontology so understood? It seems to me that there
are no scientifically rigorous answers to these questions.
The only tangible, testable objects we have to work with are the
representations themselves. Hence, it seems to me that the cleanest
approach (as I've argued before and as Ed also suggests below) is to define
any set of statements (perhaps meeting certain minimal conditions) in a given
ontology language to be an ontology. We can then easily and cleanly
define a number of useful notions for categorization and comparison, e.g.,
two ontologies are *equivalent* if each can be interpreted in the other,
inconsistent if their union is inconsistent, etc.
-chris
On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> Bill Burkett wrote:
>> Chris, Ed:
>>
>> I disagree that an ontology is (1) an artifact and (2) is something
that can be engineered. (Thus I support Peter's question of whether
"ontology engineer" is a useful term.) It is the
*representation/manifestation* of an ontology that is the artifact that is
created - it's the OWL representation (or CL representation or whatever) that
is the artifact.
>
> This is a subject that has been discussed in this forum before. I hold
> with those who believe the ontology is the artifact -- the captured
> knowledge. Captured knowledge has a form of _expression_. Knowledge that
> is without external form is not an 'ontology'. Knowledge whose external
> form is not 'suitable for automated reasoning' is not an 'ontology'.
> That is the difference between an 'ontology' and an XML schema, or a
> Java program (perhaps), or a PDF text, or a relational database.
>
> The OWL formulation is an ontology; the CL formulation is an ontology;
> they are different ontologies, even when both are said to represent
> exactly the same knowledge. If they do represent exactly the same
> knowledge, they are "equivalent".
>
> I am indebted to Professor Hyunbo Cho for the characterization of
> uncaptured knowledge as "unknown knowledge" -- a fitting
oxymoron.
>
>> There is also the intangible aspect of what the representation of
the ontology means that not subject to engineering discipline, but rather
depends more on individual interpretation and perspective.
>
> Which is only to say that the formulation of the captured knowledge has
> some level of residual ambiguity. One must realize, however, that
> perspective often adds relationships of concepts in the ontology to
> concepts that go beyond the scope of the ontology, and such differences
> in perspective may not lead to any difference in the interpretation of
> the concepts in the ontology per se.
>
> In fairness, the biggest issue in most ontologies is the number of
> primitive concepts -- concepts whose definitions are written in natural
> language and are formally testable only to the extent of the axioms
> provided for them, if any. Primitive concepts usually leave much to the
> intuition of the human reader. OTOH, there are a number of 'primitive
> concepts' in Cyc that are so strongly characterized by axioms that it is
> difficult to imagine anyone misunderstanding what was meant -- a false
> intuition will quickly lead to a contradiction.
>
>> An ontology is not like a chair or a car or a building that is
engineered to meet specific, concrete, physical requirements, and can be
measured whether or not it meets those requirements.
>
> Rich Cooper answered that:
>
>> I emphatically disagree! If the ontology doesn’t meet a
specific set
>> of needs, whether documented as requirements or some other
>> documentation method, the need drives the usage. If there are no
>> needs, the ontology stays in the college or academy where it was
>> originated or partnered with.
>>
>> Requirements, i.e. real human needs, always drive the market.
>>
>
> My sentiments exactly.
>
> I agree that a lot of what is published as ontologies is academic toys,
> but that has been true of all kinds of software for 40 years, and it is
> not restricted to software artifacts. Rich is right. Commissioned
> ontologies have a functional purpose; otherwise there would be no
> investment. The purpose of most academic stuff is to learn the trade,
> and get a degree by pretending to model a real domain, and in the
> process learning about the ugliness of reality. Civil engineers build
> concrete boats, or cardboard ones. MEs build fighting robots.
>
>> While I agree that training and experience can make one a better
ontology designer, I don't think it's possible to completely remove
individual bias from the process.
>>
>
> Well, that depends on what the process is. If you have one knowledge
> engineer working with one or more domain experts, and the result is
> nominally a consensus model, it will be biased by the opinions in the
> room that are backed by the most personally or politically powerful
> individuals, like any other such effort. And the sole ontology engineer
> is in a position of some power. But if that result is subjected to a
> fair and open review process, by peers of the knowledge engineer and
> peers of the domain experts, a lot of the biases are exposed and
> eliminated. That is, we are talking about what the engineering practice
> is. (If we start by saying this is not engineering, the practitioners
> will never be forced to consider what good practice for their trade
> might be.)
>
> -Ed
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|