ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:51:47 -0400
Message-id: <3e058a7e1319ce1bca6ae060e76807c4.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, May 31, 2013 13:31, William Frank wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Ron Wheeler <
> rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (01)

>>  As a complete novice at this, I have come to the naive conclusion that
>> ontologies need to reflect some use case in order to make any sense.    (02)

> Aha, this is surely true, in my opinion.    (03)

I would say a set of use cases.  For a single use case, an ontology may
be tweaked too finely.    (04)

>  The reason I am looking for a
> deep structure that maps to the surface models for different uses is
> entirely dependent on the use cases for the deep structure, as opposed for
> those for the surface models.   The deep structure use case is described
> below. *    (05)


>> My system analyst background says that my way of looking at wine is
>> going
>> to be a lot different if I am building a cooking site than it would if I
>> was designing a business system for the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of
>> Ontario - reputed to be the world's largest purchaser of wine).    (06)

> Surely.    (07)

Agreed.    (08)

>> I would think that if my searches are similar to "Give me a list
>> of wines that go with baked white fish." ,
>> I am going to have a much different view of wines than the
>> product manager at the LCBO who want to know "Where can I
>> get more wines that are similar to    (09)

This "wines that are similar to" Wine X brings a large overlap between
what is required for the two ontologies.  "Similarity" in wines depends
upon the standard set of properties that wine connoisseurs attribute
to wines (body, aftertaste, fruitiness, ...).  Which wines "go with"
which food types also depend upon this set of properties.    (010)

Both ontologies would have to have this set of properties and an
array of wine types classified by such properties.  The food-wine
ontology would have to have mappings between types of food
and these properties.  The LCBO ontology would not need that
(although workers in such stores might frequently be asked
such questions).  The LCBO ontology would have to have terms
for wholesale purchasing and shipping, vendors and pricing,
availability, and much else that a retail vender might need.  As a
government monopoly, the ontology need not model the competition.    (011)

>> vintner X's 2009 Premier Cru and can be
>> purchased in quantities in excess of 3000 bottles?"    (012)

>> Both queries produce a list of white wines (at least I expect it would)    (013)

I don't know vintner X, but i do know that top Bordeaux reds are classified
Premier Cru.  So whether the answer to the second question yields red
or white wines depends upon what type of wine is being referred to.    (014)

>> but the gyrations to get each list are going to be different and I would
>> expect that underlying ontologies to support the search would be
>> structured quite differently.    (015)

Yes.  Although both would have a wine property ontology and a knowledge
base of properties by wine types, the retailer's KB of wine types specified
to vintner and vintage would be expected to be greater.  The recommender
system would also have a KB mapping food types to wine properties
(if not to wine varieties); while the retailer's KB would include a standard
retailer ontology and a KB of companies involved in the business and
trade information about their wines.    (016)

>> Can one actually construct a "wine ontology" that will be equally
>> meaningful in both contexts? And equally convenient to build and
>> maintain?    (017)

*Equally* meaningful; no.    (018)

I would expect that most of the building and maintaining after working
systems had been tested and accepted in each case would be to the
knowledge bases -- not to the ontology.  If a vintner starts marketing
a new variety, stops marketing an old one, or goes out of business, or
if a new vintner enters the field, the ontology would not have to be
changed.    (019)

If a new grape is created, it would have to be added to the ontology;
but that should be a minor task.  If wine connoisseurs adopt a new
term for a wine feature, that would have to be added into the ontology.
Neither of these cases seems like it would be difficult or would require
much work.    (020)

Adding the properties of wines from a new grape to the knowledge
base should be trivial if the information is available.  For a new
property, it seems that the problem would be obtaining the
information as to which wines actually have that property and for
learning its "goes with" features -- both of which are KB, not
ontology issues.    (021)

> *As I believe and understand several others to believe, one wants to
> specify a generic, way underspecified wine ontology that needs to be
> extended in different ways to suit the needs of particular domains of
> endeavor, such as the two excellently different ones you introduce.    (022)

Agreed.  But i'd phrase it "appropriately underspecified" instead of
"way underspecified".    (023)

> With, among its goals, the ability
> to related the different domains to each others.    (024)

Yes, this would provide the ability to relate the two domains.    (025)

-- doug f.    (026)

> Wm
>
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 31/05/2013 7:04 AM, William Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:48 AM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 20:10, William Frank wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > For example, chardonnay is NOT a type of wine, contrary to the OWL
>>> > tutorial. Chardonnay is a type of grape, and a wine may be classified
>>> > according the grapes used to make it, as well as in myrid other ways.
>>>
>>> If wines my be classified according to the types of grapes used to make
>>> them, why do you object to these "classes" of wines being called
>>> "types"
>>> of wine?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps what I am saying and what you say about acyclic directed graphs
>> are close.   I also suspect I am missing something.
>>
>> I find It much more flexible and requiring less baggage to treat the
>> huge
>> variety of classification schemes (schemes such as color, region, etc.)
>> according to which something (such as Wine) can be classified, and all
>> the
>> classifiers in each scheme (red, white, burgundy, chardonnay),  as
>> themselves part of the model, and their definitions, at the same level
>> as
>> the wines themselves.   Instead of chardonnay being a 'type' of wine, if
>> instead we define the wine grape classification scheme and the
>> classifier
>> chardonnay, as for all x:wine charadonnay(x) iff (the grapes from which
>> x
>> were made were at least 50% chardonnay grapes).    Then, I would want to
>> say, this wine **is classified as a* that classifer,  Both the
>> classifier
>> and the thing classified existing at the same logical level, and in the
>> *is
>> classified as a* being the logical relation between them.
>>
>> At the same time, I have found that it is useful to construct a single,
>> quite shallow natural type hierarchy, easy for bilogical obects like
>> grapes, and not so hard for some things like wine, where we can define
>> what
>> it means to be a wine, (manufacture method), natural wines, fortified
>> wines, perhaps as the two first nodes.  I heard here not long ago that
>> figuring out what was the right core hierachy for minerals was not so
>> obvious to all, but many of the other descritors, such as hardness, I
>> would
>> treat differently.  For things like financial instruments, there is a
>> very
>> shallow hierachy based on the nature of the obligation and rights
>> involved,
>> while all the virtually infinite varieties of financial instruments are
>> better distinquished by the parts they are assembled from, and the
>> features
>> of those parts.  I have found the classifications of them ineffective if
>> done with multiple types (it becomes almost like a fine wire mesh),
>> rather
>> than with simple definitions of what it means, for instance, to be a
>> sushi
>> bond or a PIK bond.   This idea of natural types I do not know how to
>> easily argue for, though I have seen such arguments that convinced me.
>> Me,
>> I only find it effective.
>>
>>  I have often criticized the wine tutorial, but i do not find this to be
>>> one
>>> of its problems.
>>>
>>> > These are not different 'types" of wine, using the bilogical analogy
>>> for
>>> > taxonomies.
>>>
>>> Formal ontology has long since moved past taxonomy trees.  It is
>>> much more useful to use directed acyclic graphs.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> > Wine would have only ONE subtype hierachy, based on
>>> > what is essential about wine being wine.  (How it is made).
>>>
>>> One valid subtype hierarchy of types of wine is based on the type of
>>> grape.  Another (single level) hierarchy of wine type is by color.  A
>>> third is regional.  A regional division of wine types by vineyard might
>>> be useful at some level of business, but a further division by vineyard
>>> and grape variety provides a useful disjoint set of types of wine.
>>> This
>>> hierarchy of types can be taken one step further -- by vintage year.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, if one wishes to use the type concept in this way, this is
>> right, so I am seeing that my criticism of the wine tutorial is perhaps
>> misplaced.   Perhaps I simply am not happy with the way the authors of
>> OWL
>> want to use OWL.  Perhaps I am arguing more against official UML
>> semantics,
>> and OWL has nothing to do with it.  For in UML, it seems that they have
>> striated the world into so many levels each of which requires a
>> different
>> model, when in fact it is much simpler to consider the ways we classify
>> things to be things too.
>>
>> If you could help me get to the bottom of this, I would be most
>> grateful.
>>
>> Wm
>>
>>
>>> >> ...
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > William Frank
>>> >
>>> > 413/376-8167
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> William Frank
>
> 413/376-8167
>
>
> This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees
> only.
> It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
> without the permission of the sender.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>    (027)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (028)

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