Leo / Chuck et al., (01)
>> [CT] I would like to volunteer to capture all of the notes
>> concerning the "Dimensions/Aspects" of ontology types. (02)
> [LO] Excellent, Charles! You are elected.
> Peter, what are the mechanics for wiki capture of this topic? (03)
[ppy]: (04)
1. Great! Thank you, Chuck. Please capture and organized the
discussion input under:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007/FrameworksForConsideration#nidT0Q (05)
2. This is one of the four pages we have creating prior to our
2007.01.18 Launch Meeting to dynamically capture, synthesize and
organize the input posted by participants to the
[ontology-summit] mailing list. The four pages are: (06)
Collection of Resources and Collaboratively Authored Document
draft workspace on this wiki: (SPA) (07)
* /DefinitionsOfOntology (SPB)
* /FrameworksForConsideration (SPC)
* /IssuesAndCandidateResolutions (SQ1)
* /DraftCommunique (SPD) (08)
(Ref:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007#nidSPA ) (09)
3. All: suggestions for other page-titles are welcomed. (010)
4. Chuck: please contact me offline if you have any question
regarding the editing of the wiki. (You might want to start from
here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidA
if you haven't edited the Ontolog wiki before.) (011)
Regards. =ppy
-- (012)
Obrst, Leo J. wrote Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:41:08 -0500:
> Excellent, Charles! You are elected.
>
> Peter, what are the mechanics for wiki capture of this topic?
>
> Thanks much,
> Leo
>
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
> lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
> Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (013)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *Charles D Turnitsa
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:02 PM
> *To:* Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit] dimensions/aspects of ontology types?
>
> Leo,
>
> I would like to volunteer to capture all of the notes concerning
> the "Dimensions/Aspects" of ontology types. For now, I'll leave
> the "Logical Theory(?)" topic to someone else . . .
>
> The topic interests me a great deal, and as I've already contributed
> at least two potential dimensions to the conversation, I would like
> to see it continue and be recorded.
>
> Chuck
>
> Charles Turnitsa
> Project Scientist
> Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
> Old Dominion University Research Foundation
> 7000 College Drive
> Suffolk, Virginia 23435
> (757) 638-6315 (voice)
> (757) 686-6214 (fax)
> cturnits@xxxxxxx <mailto:cturnits@xxxxxxx>
>
> -----ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
>
> To: <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ontology Summit 2007 Forum"
> <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 28/01/2007 06:41PM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] dimensions/aspects of ontology types?
>
> I think we need to capture these notions in the wiki. It will be
> difficult but, I hope, possible.
>
> Peter, what do we need to do to accomplish the above?
>
> Because we are at the (relative) beginning of our discussion,
> I'd like
> to ask for topic volunteers who would capture our evolving notions
> about these notions. Note that they can be just quick notes and
> extractions from emails now. These may evolve toward coherent notes,
> form the bases of potential statements eventually: who knows?
> Unfortunately, email doesn't capture discourse.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> ps. Any volunteers? Maybe by topic? Ontology as logical theory.
> Dimensions/aspects of ontology types? There will be more; in fact,
> propose others.
>
> Expressiveness and complexity of modeling language vs. complexity of
> computation performed on content in that language?
>
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
> lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
> Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (014)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Michael
> Gruninger
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:25 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] dimensions/aspects of ontology types?
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Quoting Bill Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Hi Leo...
> >
> > I have some comments about some of these proposed dimensions..
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2007, at 14:40 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> >
> > > Dimensions of Ontology Types:
> > >
> > > 1) Formality: Informal (Formality = 0) vs. Formal
> (Formality = 1)
> >
> > I don't quite get what this means. If we're not talking about
> > artifacts that are somehow used to influence software to do
> things we
> > want, I don't see the point. So, for some thing O, if Formal(O)
> > means that O is a logical theory, then, following ChrisM, I
> don't see
> > what anything not formal should even be considered, since
> otherwise,
> > it would be pretty close to impossible to say how it could be
> used
> > for some computational end.
>
> The ecumenical definition of "ontology" that Mike Uschold and I
> have
> used is:
> "An ontology includes a vocabulary of terms together with a
> specification of
> the intended meaning of the terms."
>
> Different approaches to ontologies are distinguished by the latter
> condition,
> that is, in the way that they specify the intended meanings.
>
> Leo is pointing to a basic partitioning of these approaches.
>
> A formal ontology is a set of sentences in a language that has a
> model
> theory,
> that is, a notion of interpretation that supports truth assignments,
> satisfiability,
> and entailment.
>
> (As observed by recent discussions, this is a necessary but not
> sufficient
> condition,
> since there are sets of sentences that not everyone would
> consider to
> be an
> ontology,
> but this is not my point here).
>
> On the other hand, the specification of intended meanings in an
> informal
> ontology relies on
> extralogical mechanisms (natural language, diagrams, canonical
> software
> implementations).
>
> The line does become a little blurry when the expressiveness of the
> underlying
> logical language
> for an ontology is insufficient to axiomatize the intended
> interpretations of
> the terms.
> For example, in OWL-S (the OWL ontology for web services), different
> classes of
> processes
> such as Unordered,Sequence,etc are axiomatized in OWL.
> Nevertheless, OWL is not expressive enough to capture the full
> intended
> interpretations
> of these classes, which is specified in natural language as
> documentation.
>
> >
> > > 2) Expressivity: Expressivity of the semantic model (i.e.,
> underlying
> > > knowledge
> > > representation language or logic) [No scale determined yet]
> >
> > This is a property of a logical system, independent of the
> instances
> > of which we wish to regard as "ontology", so I'd exclude this
> dimension.
>
> It is a property of a class of structures AND the logical language.
> There are classes of structures that are not first-order definable,
> and classes of structures that are not definable in DL.
> This is an important issue because we need to be able to determine
> whether the intended interpretations of the terms in the ontology
> can be defined within the advertised formal language.
>
> - michael (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (016)
|