Steve,
I tend to agree on some of the simpler things that can be done and, in
fact, think we are somewhat off the mark in relation to some of the
interesting threads going on. (01)
We all know there are various features and levels of completeness and
detail for various ontologies (or languages) and various reasons why you
may or may not want these various features - this is not the same as
John's lattice or semantic integration of ontology languages. It can
be simpler than that, more along the lines of simply categorizing a
simple dictionary, taxonomy or fully elaborated heavy weight ontology.
This is not the same as the ontology languages in that a fully
expressive language can be used in the simplest way (but not the
inverse). (02)
It is also not the same is being precise about how these are achieved in
various languages or ontologies, it is simply a categorization informed
by the languages and ontologies that do exist. I do agree that there
are a few dimensions of such categorizations, but if there is more then
3-6 it would be to complex. (03)
For example, there are use cases for Word Net - we could name this
feature set - it may be something like: concept normalization, lexicon
mapping and coverage of natural language terms. It would then be
interesting to say what you could do with that feature set (E.G.
matching like concepts between different artifacts) as well as what you
couldn't do (discover social connections between organizations). (04)
With this in place things like CL, SUMO, the lattice or OWL can be
analyzed in terms of its feature set and the use case behind using it.
It would also provide those acquiring ontologies with a benchmark for
what to require in a given situation. (05)
In the marketspece this would be useful in that there is a lot of people
promoting advantages that DO NOT require the level of sophistication
they suggest as well as many promising outcomes that can not be realized
with their simplistic approach. There is also interest in ontologies
but confusion about what, exactly, that means. I think such a
categorization scheme would be of use, but it may not be "interesting"
to those capable of producing it! (06)
-Cory Casanave (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:28 AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2007 Forum'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology" (08)
This might work. Personally, I will be most interested in the "dumb
version" but it makes sense to base that one a more sophisticated
structure. (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John A.
Bateman
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:47 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Defining "ontology" (010)
My take on the discussion yesterday is the following. I agree with Steve
Ray that it could be useful to achieve a more 'commonsense'
description of ontologies that would enable them to be sold more readily
to those without the technical backup. I am sure many of us have used
variants of the very useful overhead from LOA and the Wonderweb project
showing the dimension ranging from indexes and glossaries at one end to
full formalised axiomatised ontologies at the other. The update of this
in Michael Uschold's overhead on the wiki is a further example: (011)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MichaelUschold (012)
These establish a clearly understandable (or apparently so)
characterisation that people can situate their interests on.
I presume that a characterisation such as Steve was suggesting would
move us further in the direction of having a finer articulation of the
positions on this and other similar dimensions. (013)
I would not agree, however, that such an endeavor should be undertaken
*before* looking at more formal characterisations.
We can already say a lot more about the dimensions taking us from index
to Ontology adopting what is known from the formalisation side. But,
conversely, the fact that we do not have the final word on a formalised
characterisation of the space of ontologies and the simple dimension is
still quite useful, demonstrates that we need not wait for the final
formal word before having useful taxonomies (folksonomies? :-) of
ontologies themselves. Therefore I see a need for (at least) three
parallel working group efforts, that will each appeal to different (but
hopefully overlapping) participants. These could be pursued in parallel
with as frequent as possible reporting back to see how soon they can
start being combined. (014)
(1) Characterisation of 'kinds of ontology' building on
whatever dimensions of characterisation appear useful.
These could start with the index-glossary-taxonomy-
Ontology continuum and add as seems useful. (015)
(2) Characterisation of kinds of ontology building on
the formal structuring mechanisms employed (one module,
many modules; modules of the same expressivity,
modules of different expressivities; ...), on the
formal languages employed in each of these
modules, on ways of characterising
the concrete use made of the expressive resources
available (e.g., proving that some ontology X actually
lies within some restricted modal logic rather than
the full first order logic casually claimed by its
developers; or that a fragment lies within some other
sublanguage, etc.), and then perhaps notions of size. (016)
(3) Characterisation of use cases, working through a classification
of what kinds of purposes, functionalities, users,
are involved. (017)
I would expect that there are going to be many points of contact and,
finally, even semiformaliseable connections/relations between the three
activities. But since there is much to do in each of these areas before
it is quite clear what is going to be talked about even internally,
mixing the three from the start may be a way of having a lot of very
crossed purposes/wires. (018)
This might be one way of leading up to a very nice 'deliverable' by the
time of the April summit. (019)
Thoughts? (020)
best,
John B. (021)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (022)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (024)
|