If it is known to ontologists that common vocabulary includes the term
"pineapple tree", then is there not a way to engineer ontologies to
account for such "inaccurate" statements and still be useful? (01)
Jack (02)
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:45 AM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A lot of general knowledge would be needed in such an ontology.
> For example, if the system had the information that pineapples grew at
> the top of stems growing vertically out of the ground and that such
> stems were disjoint from trees, then it could reject as inconsistent
> with the knowledge base any statement that pineapples were found
> growing on trees anywhere.
>
> If the KB also included the information that many false documents are
> published dated April 1, it should flag as questionable any claim to
> scientific discoveries made on that date.
>
> Predicates for temperature ranges for growth, flowering, and fruiting of
> plant species should be in an ontology dealing with climate change.
>
> Do you have a link to your current ontology?
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> On Mon, April 1, 2013 13:14, Duane Nickull wrote:
>> I have been working with a climate group for a while on creating a top
>> level
>> domain ontology for climate tracking. While we thought we had everything
>> settled, some surprises came up. In particular, we found some new
>> evidence
>> that lead us to believe we had missed a major portion of our model for our
>> ontology pertaining to new proof global warming was having concrete
>> effects.
>
>> To illustrate the point, consider this evidence:
>> http://technoracle.blogspot.ca/2013/04/finally-concrete-proof-of-global-warm
>> ing.html
>
>
>
>> Any ideas on how to dynamically adjust the ontology work to compensate for
>> stuff like this?
>>
>> Duane Nickull
>>
>> ***********************************
>> Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
>> Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
>> i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
>> b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>> t. @duanenickull
>>
>>
>> NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
>> information. If you are the intended recipient, please consider this a
>> privileged communication, not to be forwarded without explicit approval
>> from
>> the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
>> sender
>> immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies.
>> Any
>> dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the
>> intended
>> recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. The originator reserves the
>> right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks for
>> quality
>> control purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Monday, 1 April, 2013 9:12 AM
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why a data model does not an ontology make
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Michel, Leo, and Michael,
>>>
>>> JFS
>>>> > But what was produced [by the SW] failed to address the requirements
>>>> Tim
>>>> > proposed and many others (including Robert and me) believe are
>>>> essential.
>>>
>>> MD
>>>> > can you list/summarize the requirements and why you think the steps
>>>> that
>>>> > the semantic web effort has made do *not* contribute to those
>>>> requirements?
>>>
>>> As I've said repeatedly, three words that Tim B-L emphasized in the DAML
>>> proposal of 2000 were diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability.
>>>
>>> In the final DAML report of 2005, two of them (diversity and
>>> interoperability) were mentioned just once and heterogeneity was
>>> never mentioned at all.
>>>
>>> I also believe that Robert Meersman's short summary is very good:
>>>
>>> http://starlab.vub.ac.be/website/files/MeersmanBuffaloAug2007.pdf
>>>> > Why "the" Semantic Web has failed.
>>>> > * Data models vs. ontologies
>>>> > * Legacy systems
>>>> > * Scalability
>>>> > * Methodology
>>>
>>> For point #1, RDF + SPARQL is just YADM -- Yet Another Data Model.
>>> It has few advantages and many disadvantages over data models that have
>>> been in use for decades. I have no objection to YADM if people find it
>>> useful, but I have serious objections to edicting any single data model
>>> as a requirement for the Semantic Web.
>>
>> So, what we have here is at least some effort towards standardizing at
>> least
>> one KR format with web standards in mind. RDF specifies URIs for naming
>> and
>> provides an XML serialization for processing compatibility. Still, other
>> serializations are available (my preferred is n-triples), and other
>> vocabularies can build on it (e.g. formal KR languages like OWL or
>> vocabularies for representation of specific knowledge e.g. SKOS, PROV,
>> etc).
>> Now that we have RDF(S) + OWL (+OWL profiles), we see many efforts to
>> align
>> KR languages (e.g. RIF, others) against these - which I think is highly
>> desired for interoperability.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For point #2, Tim B-L noted the importance of interoperability with
>>> legacy systems, but the DAML report ignored them completely. I can't
>>> blame them for not doing everything in five years, but they have not
>>> done *anything* to support legacy systems in the past 13 years.
>>>
>>> And please do not repeat the claim that they provided a tool to convert
>>> RDBs to RDF. Interoperability means that the legacy systems work with
>>> the new tools *concurrently* -- not by means of forced conversion.
>>>
>>
>> ok, how about ontop developed by Mariano Rodriguez and colleagues:
>> http://ontop.inf.unibz.it/
>> it enables one to map OWL-QL ontologies to SQL database and answer
>> queries.
>> no conversion required.
>>
>>
>>
>>> For point #3, the SW people claim that OWL is decidable. That only
>>> means that decisions terminate in *finite* time -- even though that
>>> time might be greater than the age of the universe. For anything
>>> the size of the WWW, scalability means no worse than (N log N) time.
>>>
>>
>> and there have been many projects to deal with scalability. Consider
>> WebPie
>> (http://www.few.vu.nl/~jui200/webpie.html) by Frank van Harmelan and
>> colleagues which does RDFS + OWL Horst reasoning using map reduce.
>>
>>
>>> For point #4, please reread Robert M's slides for an example of what
>>> a methodology can and should support.
>>>
>>
>> then my point is that the onus is on those that wish to bring new
>> technology
>> to the masses to go through the standardization effort where it can be
>> subject to criticism and compromise for real world deployment.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> m.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Leo
>>>> > The closest that relational databases get to having a semantic model
>>>> > is the conceptual schema, which is a type of conceptual model
>>>> (modeled
>>>> > in a graphic Entity-Relation-Attribute language, with cardinality
>>>> restrictions).
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there was never a standard for a conceptual schema, and
>>> the vendors merely pasted the term 'conceptual schema' on top of what
>>> they were doing anyway. They turned it into an advertising slogan.
>>>
>>> E-R-A + cardinality is a requirement that must be specified in any
>>> conceptual schema (or ontology), but it's far from sufficient.
>>> And most of the published OWL ontologies do little or nothing
>>> to go beyond that level.
>>>
>>> From 1978 to 2000, the published R & D on the conceptual schema and
>>> related issues went far beyond what the vendors provided, Tim B-L
>>> cited some of that work, but the DAML developers ignored it.
>>>
>>> Leo
>>>> > Now the above view does have rare exceptions in the database world:
>>>> e.g.,
>>>> > Matthew West's work immediately springs to mind. Similarly, HighFleet
>>>> > (formerly Ontology Works) tries to bridge the ontology-database
>>>> connection.
>>>> > Also, of course deductive databases try to combine logic programming
>>>> +
>>>> > relational constructs, though these just focus on the
>>>> implementational
>>>> > apparatus you would need for more expressive ontologies, but say
>>>> nothing
>>>> > in particular about ontologies.
>>>
>>> I agree that the systems you mention are good. But there were many
>>> years of very good systems that the SW ignored. Deductive DBs were
>>> proposed in the 1970s -- note Planner and Microplanner. RDBs combined
>>> with Prolog and other AI tools have been widely used since the '80s.
>>> Tim B-L cited them in his DAML proposal of 2000, but the SW gnored them.
>>>
>>> By the way, two commercial companies *based* on Prolog + RDBs are
>>> Mathematica and Experian. Mathematica started with Prolog as their
>>> underlying reasoning engine in the '80s, and they have developed the
>>> foundation into a very rich logic-programming system that uses RDBs
>>> for external storage.
>>>
>>> Experian uses Prolog + RDBs for Big Data -- much bigger than any
>>> application that uses RDF + OWL. They compute everybody's credit
>>> rating on a daily basis with every imaginable input they can find.
>>> They use Prolog so heavily that they bought the Prologia company.
>>>
>>> MB
>>>> > But I have to add that the transition between data model and ontology
>>>> > is fluent. In practice, you often have to make compromises - for
>>>> example to
>>>> > enable better querying or because knowledge and application data
>>>> cannot be
>>>> > untied easily.
>>>
>>> I agree. And those issues were addressed in the 3-schema strategy of
>>> of the original ANSI/SPARC TR in 1978. The conceptual schema -- which
>>> is very close, if not identical, to what we now call formal ontology --
>>> was at the heart of the proposal. The physical schema, which is very
>>> close, if not identical to what is called the data model, specifies
>>> the data formats, layout, and structure. The application schema
>>> specifies the APIs of the software.
>>>
>>> I also agree that the detailed ontologies will often use primitives
>>> and operations that have a simple mapping to the preferred data model.
>>> That is another reason why I have recommended an underspecified upper
>>> level ontology with families of "microtheories" for more specialized
>>> ontologies that are optimized for different kinds of applications.
>>>
>>> But those issues get into details that we have discussed many
>>> times before, and I won't repeat them now.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michel Dumontier
>> Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University
>> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest
>> Group
>> http://dumontierlab.com
>> _________________________________________________________________ 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
>>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|