Thank you, Rich. (01)
I agree, generating ontologies is something I was looking at, along
with (SPARQL) query rewriting and various other applications. (02)
You can find the complete thesis here:
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero/msc_thesis/document/b-gajderowicz-msc-thesis.pdf (03)
... with all supplementary material here:
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero/msc_thesis/ (04)
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks (05)
On 7 July 2011 01:13, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> The thesis abstract sounds greatly interesting, possibly even very useful
> for automating ontology generation from empirical data and using it to
> design ontologies in a controlled way! Please email me a copy when it's
> complete, and good luck on it, I would love to read it.
>
> -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 Bart
> Gajderowicz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:37 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
> The work on granular ontologies [1] touches on these topics. Granules
> are "partitions of object space where objects are indistinguishable"
> [2]. Specifically, this deals with the problem of viewing concepts
> which have vague characteristics, as concrete objects.
>
> To use John's example, one set of properties would be used to
> distinguish various members of the Canis genus, and a completely
> different set of properties would be used to distinguish various
> subspecies of dogs.
>
> In terms of a user/ontologists bias, Brodaric [3] published papers to
> describe how a geologist's bias leads to mis-classification of rock
> types, and how empirical data helps in correcting such bias.
>
> My MSc. thesis [4] applies these ideas to extend ontology concepts
> with empirical data, and derive decision tree rules represented in
> OWL. I then use these granular rules for ontology matching.
>
>
> [1] T. Bittner and B. Smith. Granular partitions and vagueness. In
> FOIS ’01: Proceedings of the international conference on Formal
> Ontology in Information Systems, pages 309–320, New York, NY, USA,
> 2001. ACM.
>
> [2] Klinov, P., Mazlack, L.J., Granulating Semantic Web Ontologies, In
> Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Granular
> Computing, pages 431-434, 2006, IEEE.
>
> [3] M. Brodaric and M. Gahegan. Experiments to examine the situated
> nature of geoscientific concepts. Spatial Cognition and Computation:
> An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(1):61–95, 2007.
>
> [4] B. Gajderowicz. Using decision trees for inductively driven
> semantic integration and ontology matching. Master’s thesis, Ryerson
> University, 250 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2011.
> http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero/msc_thesis/
>
>
> --
> Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
> Ryerson University
> http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero
>
>
>
>
> On 6 July 2011 16:19, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, July 6, 2011 14:38, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>>> John wrote
>>>> "And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
>>>> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
>>>> foundation for a "standard ontology".
>>
>>> Agree. Here are five methodogical rules from the standard ontology:
>>> 1. Class is determined by a single property;
>>
>> This definition would block many subclasses, unless the property
>> is defined as membership in the class.
>>
>>> 2. Kind is determined by a set of properties;
>>
>> Is this a useful distinction?
>>
>>> 3. Natural Kind is determined by a set of lawfully related properties
>>> (laws);
>>> 4. Natural Genus is the set of things sharing a basic law;
>>
>> I haven't heard this term except in the context of Linneaen taxonomy.
>>
>>> 5. Natural Species is the set of things sharing a particular law.
>>
>> The term has a useful meaning in biology; but what is its use otherwise?
>>
>>> Many classifications are mostly at the level one, like the five
>>> classifications for natural resources, such as land, water, soils,
> plants,
>>> animals, solar power, etc, divided by a single property: origin;
>>> renewability, availability, development stage or distribution scope.
>>
>> There are many gradations of wetlands reaching from soggy ground to
>> standing shallow water. A rigid division between land and water is quite
>> arbitrary. Fungi used to be classified as plants, but now they are a
>> different kingdom.
>>
>>> A more
>>> scientific understanding of resources is asking for reaching higher
>>> levels.
>>
>> Even at this level there are difficulties.
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>>
>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:45 PM
>>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>>>
>>>
>>>> This forum has been quiet for a while, and I'd like to stir the pot
>>>> with a controversial issue.
>>>>
>>>> Two widely known rigid classifications established a paradigm,
>>>> which some people mistakenly consider the norm: the periodic
>>>> table in chemistry and the Linneaen taxonomy of living things.
>>>> But the rigid boundaries of those categories are the result of
>>>> underlying laws of nature that explain why intermediate cases are
>>>> impossible (periodic table) and rare (taxonomy of species).
>>>>
>>>> For physics and chemistry, quantum mechanics implies discrete steps,
>>>> which create discrete classifications of elementary particles.
>>>> At the next level up, it also implies discrete combinations of
>>>> such particles -- combinations of quarks to form baryons (protons
>>>> and neutrons) and combinations of atoms to form molecules.
>>>>
>>>> For biology, discrete molecular operations support the stable
>>>> molecules needed for life and the mechanisms for replicating the
>>>> huge molecules needed for DNA. But those mechanisms are only
>>>> weakly stable -- that leads to random mutations.
>>>>
>>>> For the next level up, natural selection creates fuzzy boundaries
>>>> among interbreeding populations, but crisp boundaries between
>>>> isolated populations. For example, look at the sharp distinction
>>>> between foxes and wolves, but fuzzy boundaries among dogs. When
>>>> humans allow dogs to "do their own thing", the breeds quickly
>>>> revert to a generic ur-dog -- which is usually healthier and
>>>> more robust than many breeds.
>>>>
>>>> Some biological classifications are not based on DNA. Examples
>>>> are trees and berries. For example, the family Rosaceae includes
>>>> rose bushes, apple trees, and raspberries. Biologically, all
>>>> berries are fruit, but apples are more likely to be grouped with
>>>> oranges as "typical" fruit than with raspberries.
>>>>
>>>> By height and woodiness, an apple tree is more likely to be
>>>> classified with a remotely related spruce tree than with
>>>> a rose bush. And many evergreens become bushes or trees
>>>> at the whim of some human with a pair of shears.
>>>>
>>>> There is even a debate in India whether bamboo should be
>>>> classified as grass or tree: "Recently there was a controversy
>>>> when the union ministry of environment and forests asked states
>>>> across India to recognise bamboo as a minor forest produce."
>>>>
>>>> See http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Bamboo
>>>>
>>>> In general, what makes any classification rigid is some *law*,
>>>> which could be a law of nature or some human rule. Since it's
>>>> a lot easier to change human laws, such classifications are
>>>> likely to change with culture, technology, or fads.
>>>>
>>>> Summary: Fuzzy boundaries are the norm in most classifications.
>>>> Whenever a boundary seems to be sharp, look for some axiom, law,
>>>> principle, or convention that creates the distinction. Those
>>>> laws are more fundamental than any grouping by "similarity".
>>>>
>>>> And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
>>>> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
>>>> foundation for a "standard ontology".
>>>>
>>>> John Sowa
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>> 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/
> 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
>
>
> (06)
--
Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
Ryerson University
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero (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)
|