On 10/18/2012 4:02 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> Most of the applications we see are actually rather pure, in the form of
> various uses of DL reasoning at design time or runtime. Of course, the
> reasoner is usually called by a program, but I would not call this
> hybrid KR. (01)
That's true -- but only because there is no other option. (02)
Purity is the antithesis of Tim's vision of diversity, heterogeneity,
and interoperability. The world is impure. Tim B-L knew that, and
so do the major web companies that formed WebPortal.org and Schema.org. (03)
None of them use the SW software stack. They are developing tools,
ontologies, and languages that ignore the SW tools. Their focus
is on mainstream IT. The only way the SW can become relevant to
mainstream IT is to co-opt them. Work with them and extend the
SW framework to support their requirements. (04)
> If you are interested, here are some recent examples documenting the
> use of reasoning in biology and medicine:
>
> * David Osumi-Sutherland, Simon Reeve, Christopher J. Mungall, Fabian Neuhaus,
> Alan Ruttenberg, Gregory S. X. E. Jefferis, and J. Douglas Armstrong: A
>strategy
> for building neuroanatomy ontologies Bioinformatics (2012) 28(9): 1262-1269
> * Robert Hoehndorf, Michel Dumontier, Georgios V. Gkoutos: Identifying
>aberrant
> pathways through integrated analysis of knowledge in pharmacogenomics.
> Bioinformatics Volume 28, Issue 16. Pp. 2169-2175
> * Alan Rector, Luigi Iannone: Lexically suggest, logically define: Quality
> assurance of the use of qualifiers and expected results of post-coordination
> in SNOMED CT. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 45 (2012) 199–209 (05)
Those are very nice research papers. They occupy a niche that is so
small that it will be ignored by mainstream IT -- unless and until it
is integrated with the very messy world. The longer it remains pure,
the less impact it will have on the major problems of health care. (06)
> I do not think that there will be one KR approach to rule them all.
> Different approaches will be optimal for different tasks. (07)
Absolutely! Please note that Tim said that the primary measure
of success for the SW is the amount of diversity it supports. (08)
> I am actually well aware of FCA. I have wondered about the applications
> of FCA to semantic wikis for a while, but this did not materialise so far.
> It seems obvious: wikis have data, FCA has methods for visualising and
> analysing data. (09)
Visualization is just a tiny part of the FCA range of applications.
FCA, by itself, can support the great majority of published OWL
ontologies, which just build a hierarchy whose "definitions" are
nothing but English sentences marked as comments. (010)
Furthermore, FCA and its automated methods are widely used to analyze
and check OWL ontologies for consistency. Type "FCA OWL concept" to
Google, and you'll get 112,000 hits. The first one is a tutorial: (011)
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcai11fcaontologytutorial/syllabus (012)
> lattices might have a place there, but most people are not used to this
> type of display and would have to learn how to read it first. (013)
The display was *not* my main point. I mentioned the use of FCA to
analyze WordNet and Roget's Thesaurus because it shows that the FCA
tools can easily handle ontologies with tens of thousands of concepts. (014)
*And* FCA tools automatically derive a consistent multiple inheritance
hierarchy at the push of a button. The users never have to look at
the hierarchy if they don't want to. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|