I think we are in agreement here. (02)
I also think that perhaps there is but one distinction between what
I've been calling "topic maps" and the ontologies discussed here, and
perhaps it is this (keeping in mind I am not distinguishing by means
of implementation, since topic maps have been written in everything
from frame languages to RDF including dialects of OWL): a topic map
remains a map of a possibly large territory, one that provides
mappings among definitions and terms, as well as relations among
topics; as a map, it seeks to "locate" like topics together, same
topics at the same "location". A distinction is that use of key-value
pair properties is encouraged over reliance on individual URIs for
identification. Other than that, a topic map could be any ontology
taken from a library of them. To be considered conformant with the
reference model (TMRM), certain definitions must be made available in
a public "legend". Where that is already the case, there may be no
distinction whatsoever; that is, an ontology can be a topic map and
vice versa. My bringing topic maps into this conversation dealt
mostly with the idea expressed in the subject line, under the rubric
of knowledge federation. (03)
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:03 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, April 22, 2011 14:47, David Eddy said:
>> On 2011-04-21, at 5:15 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>>> Ok. Le't assume we are just talking about that key. Lets put it into a
>>> frame-like representation to see if I got it right.
>>> Frame: rdf:ID = "<some uri>"
>>> commonLabel: policy number
>>> otherLabels: M01010, .....
>>> domain: ....
>>> range: .....
>> Assuming you'd have something like otherLabels: M01010, MSTR-POL-
>> NO, contract_ID, .... ? When I search for one I find all?
> In this form, yes. It would be better for them to be contextually
> defined in a knowledge base, so that you would find the right one
> for the context (application, department, ...) you are using.
>> I'm not sure if I'd go with "commonLabel"... there are HUGE issues
>> here in how & what people remember & use for language.
> I'd also pick another name for use in an ontology.
>> Where is that ontological app that I can have on my iPad that will
>> automagically sync with the 30 year SME to tell me he's thinking
>> M0760 and let him know my MSTR-MENSA-FL is actually his M0760?
> Ir would be an intercontextual question. You tell your app both the
> terms set you are using & the set of terms which the SME is using.
> The app determines the ontological concept you mean by a term look up,
> and then displays the term used for that concept in one of the SME's
> term sets.
>> This is where I loose how ontologies provide value... at least to the
>> care & feeding of legacy systems (the systems that run our lives).
>> What I hear here is an attempt to find the perfect, correct concept
>> (name/label in my domain). There is no such thing.
> The equating of concept with "term/label" is the problem here. There is
> no need to standardize on a term or label between legacy applications --
> or between systems in different departments or companies. The terms just
> need to be mapped to a common concept, with the mappings indicating the
> term set or context used and an application to provide the appropriate
> term for the appropriate context.
>> For 20+ years I've watched folks tilt at the "one correct standard
>> name across the enterprise". Never going to happen.
> Agreed. We need to let users know that we are not standardizing the
> terminology they use, but are establishing mappings between their
> terms and ontological structures.
>> I posit that we need something that discovers the names/labels in the
>> context of their native use (my SME having worked with M0760 for 30+
>> years) & associate them with the other similar/like things.
> Cyc does this through #$denotation and microtheories. Although Cyc
> uses these lexical microtheories mostly for natural languages, there
> is no reason that they couldn't be used for term sets as well.
> For example,
> (#$ist @$DEddysMt
> (#$denotation #$MSTR-MENSA-FL_String #$TermCode ?MEANING))
> (#$ist @$SNEsMt
> (#$denotation ?SMEsString #$TermCode ?MEANING)))
> Yes, this formulation requires objects representing the strings, just
> like Cyc models natural language words. Similar predicates could be
> created to map text strings instead of NL words
>> So far I have not seen any interest in the ontology world for this
>> issue. Can ontologies be relevant to dealing with legacy systems?
> -- doug foxvog
>> David Eddy
>> 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
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (06)