ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:49:59 -0400
Message-id: <B958E6B1BCD5114789747469E80A8762BD9526A120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,
With respect to your points:
  4. More generally, any "universal" ontology intended for a wide range
     of applications will have to be underspecified in order to support
     an open-ended range of models.    (01)

[cbc] Are these "universal" ontologies indeed underspecified or are they in 
fact properly specified for their scope?  That is, is it necessary that these 
ontologies not say things that are still assumed true for the "shared concept" 
but that we have no way of saying this in a general way?  Or, are we simply 
recognizing that we must be careful about the commitments we make and that 
general ontologies have, in the past, tended to over comment?    (02)

  5. Each domain of application will need to add more information
     that specializes the definitions in the general ontology. And
     the details added for one domain or one kind of application are
     likely to be inconsistent with the details needed for others.    (03)

[cbc] So are these in fact then the same concept or are they derivative 
concepts, perhaps sharing the same label?    (04)

-Cory    (05)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:42 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms    (06)

On 3/13/2012 12:22 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> But the Amazon solution is very much made up of unstructured text, and 
> the product search is mostly using key words like Google uses for 
> search.  So in that sense, Amazon's database design is very basic, and 
> its keyword search is helpful but not new technology.  It's a version 
> of SEO practices: using keywords to describe your product the way your 
> customers search for it.    (07)

I used Amazon.com because their DB schema is probably the most widely used 
formal ontology in the world.  Any additional info in NL text or pictures is 
not part of the ontology that supports interoperability with their suppliers.    (08)

> Is that your view of how future ontologies will be used for 
> interchange, i.e., a skeletal database model with active users 
> participating in the database for their own purposes, and using 
> unstructured text to distinguish their products from others?    (09)

That's one kind of use.  But many applications can profit from much more 
detailed ontologies.  However, the detailed specifications are likely to be 
limited to domain-dependent microtheories.    (010)

> how is that influenced by ontological thinking?    (011)

Everybody has different thoughts about ontology.  As I said to Ed B, I was only 
trying to make five general points (copy below).    (012)

For more, see the following papers:    (013)

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/futures.pdf    (014)

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.pdf    (015)

John
_____________________________________________________________________    (016)

  1. Interoperability requires much more than unique identifiers that
     point to definitions shared by all applications.    (017)

  2. For example, the shared definitions that support interoperability
     for transactions through Amazon.com include only as much detail
     as necessary to support Amazon operations -- and no more.    (018)

  3. In different applications, those weak definitions are probably
     inadequate for messages that use the same terms in contexts with
     more detailed specializations (i.e., axioms or constraints).    (019)

  4. More generally, any "universal" ontology intended for a wide range
     of applications will have to be underspecified in order to support
     an open-ended range of models.    (020)

  5. Each domain of application will need to add more information
     that specializes the definitions in the general ontology. And
     the details added for one domain or one kind of application are
     likely to be inconsistent with the details needed for others.    (021)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (022)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (023)

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