[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies

To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:28:04 +0300
Message-id: <59F5B2FF4C5F472AB8B71FBE1B615DEA@personalpc>
Roughly, a global ontology is about generic standards, structures, rules, 
policies, procedures, and processes applied globally and locally.
Here is a mechanical ontological ruling sample:
"Japan is located in the earthquake zone. Nuclear power stations are banned 
in the earthquake zones. Japan is prohibited to have nuclear power 
Then the globe has never had the Fukusima nuclear accidents. The world has 
about 440 reactors, and most of them are risky, following different nuclear 
energy policies and safety standards.
The price of the question is too high, it's our future, the future of our 
Some comments below.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies    (01)

> On 4/25/2011 1:53 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>> ... it could be a roadmap strategy for the most innovative solutions
>> to emerging global problems...
> I believe that good ontologies can help, but they're not magic.
>> let's float and field-test the idea of a global ontology
> Many people have said such things.  The largest and most detailed
> formal ontology today is Cyc.  It has undergone more testing than
> any other global ontology ever proposed.  But it has also been
> criticized and rejected for many reasons by many experts.  There
> is zero evidence than any other ontology could do any better.    (02)

AA: The issue with CYC, it's just missing the global ontology. We had enough 
of this before.
> The #1 problem for software is to integrate the multi-trillion dollars
> worth of legacy software into semantic systems.  Every one of them
> has an *implicit* ontology.  Whenever anybody upgrades a legacy system
> with a new *explicit* ontology, they make sure that it is compatible
> with the *old* implicit ontology.  Those ontologies are not going away.    (03)

AA: Indeed. This is a big test for the global ontology, to reveal inherent 
structures and underlying meaning organizations
>> I am sure that no entity is monitoring the oil/gas threats globally
>> or locally. Say, the same Gulf of Mexico, with 50,000 oil and gas wells,
>> to be unsealed or uncapped and abandoned without any regular technical
>> monitoring, is nothing but an environmental "minefield" of other deadly
>> oil-rig explosions.
> That's an excellent argument for better monitoring.  But the connection
> to a single global ontology is dubious.    (04)

AA: The Earth/Environment Monitoring and Measuring Networks Infrastructure 
is under slow development, including seismic monitoring, tidal monitoring, 
metereological monitoring, and fluviometric monitoring networks as well as 
GPS, EOS, Geodetic benchmarks, and Geospatial  Data Infrastructure. But it 
needs a dynamic integration of data, processes and functions.
Kingsley's comments are in line here:
"Being able to leverage the WWW as a global data space where conversations 
are machine discernible will help. Facebook, Twitter, and
other social networking oriented data space enclaves are showing the way 
(albeit totally privacy challenged today)."    (05)

> The BP spill, for example, could very easily have been prevented by
> responsible managers who took safety seriously.  BP management got
> many, many warnings from their employees, and they ignored every last
> one of them.  More warnings coming from a computer would have been
> just as easy for them to ignore.    (06)

AA: It's not so simple as it looks. If it was a must at least a 3D Facility 
Information Model, acting on a generic ontology, and successfully applied in 
the AEC industry, then the authorities and general public could know easier 
who really was to blame:
The rig owner (Transocean, its safety systems and devices);
The blowout preventer faulty design (Cameron Int);
The cement contractor (Cheny's Halliburton)
As a result of lacking the FIM, now observe their rows in federal court, 
where BP is suing Transoceanic for $ 40b in damages, while the latter one 
goes against BP, HB, and many other companies and suppliers, with no visible 
But the saddest result, it is suffering of simple people and bad disturbing 
of ocean food chain. And its all comes from defaulting ontology-driven 
Facility Information Modeling Systems.
> John     (07)

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    (08)

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