ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Architectural considerations in Ontology Development

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:54:02 -0500
Message-id: <511FFFFA.8000001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Matthew, David, Kingsley, and Steven,    (01)

MW
> ... both you and Doug completely missed the point that we were
> talking about methodologies for INTEGRATING (or conceptual)
> ontologies, not reasoning ontologies.    (02)

First of all, you cannot separate concepts from reasoning.
But that is not the source of the disagreement.    (03)

I believe that our disagreement arises over the distinction between
a descriptive definition and a proscriptive or normative definition.
In your work at Shell, you were defining standards for integrating
the engineering designs at a single company.  For that purpose,
you needed to specify normative standards.    (04)

I recognize the importance of specifying engineering standards,
especially since I have participated in ISO standards groups.
But we also need to design our systems to interoperate in a
world of people and systems over which we have no control.    (05)

MW
> The whole purpose of an integrating ontology is to be able to leave
> the legacy systems alone, but bring together their data in a uniform
> environment so that data can be analysed across multiple applications.    (06)

I believe that we should use the term 'normative' for any ontology
that is designed to establish a standard for some domain.    (07)

Since legacy systems run the world economy and they're not going away,
we must also relate the normative concepts to the descriptive concepts
about a wide range of systems whose design is outside our control.    (08)

MW
> CYC is not an integrating ontology - granted it is very large, but
> it has an entirely different purpose.    (09)

I agree that Cyc was primarily designed to be a descriptive ontology,
but it can also support microtheories of normative concepts for
any purpose anyone might need to specify.    (010)

For example, Cyc can give underspecified definitions for time and
space that avoid any commitment to a 4D or a 3+1 D ontology.  Then
different microtheories could add axioms that complete the spec
in one way or the other.    (011)

JFS
>> Avoid making detailed commitments in the top levels.  Push any
>> complex details or distinctions into the middle and lower levels.    (012)

MW
> Rubbish. You should make commitments at the appropriate level.    (013)

I can't disagree with the sentence following the word 'rubbish'.    (014)

But I had descriptive ontologies in mind.  I believe that it is
possible to communicate between systems that use different and
even inconsistent ontologies or no explicit ontology of any kind.    (015)

An underspecified descriptive ontology could be used for general
communication.  You could define your ontology as a stand-alone
normative ontology.  But for broader communication, a copy of it
could be inserted as a microtheory underneath a descriptive ontology.    (016)

Communications between the systems are possible if the messages
do not require any of the details that cause conflicts.    (017)

JFS
>> Design the ontology in a way that is easy to modify or adapt
>> as needed -- preferably by automated or semi-automated methods.    (018)

MW
> Well I'm pleased to find something I can agree with at last. However,
> I think this is as much a design approach issue as it is a tools issue.    (019)

I agree.    (020)

MW
> I would appreciate it if you could try to react to what is being
> discussed, rather than keep mounting old hobby horses.    (021)

I believe that our disagreements would vanish if we adopt the terms
'normative' and 'descriptive'.    (022)

I agree that an ontology used *only* for normative purposes can put
design decisions (such as a 4D vs 3+1 D ontology) at the highest
levels.  But to support communication with outside systems (and
interoperability depends critically on communication), it is
necessary to use a very underspecified upper level.    (023)

In summary, your normative ontology could be used with a descriptive
ontology such as Cyc by defining it as a Cyc microtheory in which
the underspecified terms in the upper level would become fully
specified in the way that your ontology requires.    (024)

DE
> I would argue that to a large extent what "formal requirements" exist
> are only the code since it's what runs in production tonight.  The formal,
> written documentation that may have existed initially has been allowed to 
>lapse.    (025)

Yes.  That is what happened in the legacy engineering project I
mentioned.  Fortunately, the VivoMind software was able to detect
the changes that occurred over time.    (026)

DE
> I think I remember in the VivoMind examples...    (027)

Yes. I sometimes shorten the presentation by omitting some examples.    (028)

KI
> Yes, you want to enable folks to take advantage of contemporary and
> future technology advances while minimizing disruption (if any) to
> legacy systems.    (029)

That requires a careful balance between descriptive and normative
definitions and constraints.  I believe it can be done.    (030)

SEZ
> ... the assurance that in writing an application the program and any data
> representation will be translated correctly to the machine; not only in the
> first instance but on any machine for which it may be translated in the 
>future...    (031)

That is a normative constraint.  I agree that it is necessary to 
guarantee that a particular implementation does exactly what the
the manual says it does.    (032)

SEZ
> I am against diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability if it means
> - as excuse - that things get to stay as they are.    (033)

Unless the world is taken over by an omniscient dictator who asserts
all the specifications and micromanages every implementation, we will
always have diversity and heterogeneity.  I recommend that we design
our systems to support interoperability with systems we can't control.    (034)

But we can still make sure our own systems conform to the manual.    (035)

John    (036)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (037)

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