Re: [ontology-summit] dimensions/aspects of ontology types?

[Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all, this hadn't reached the list bacause I sent it from a different address, and only Leo replied to it.

Best

Aldo

> Hi Leo, this seems a much more concrete
> thread than defining "ontology" :).
> Regarding dimensions/aspects, you may
> want to check the work made by my group on formalizing qualitative
> criteria for ontologies. That is a quite comprehensive framework, and
> you can take advantage of it during these early attempt at singling
> out dimensions.
> The papers and the OWL ontology
> referenced below describe ontology dimensions, measures, and
> qualitative principles. We have modelled them by using extensive
> reification on top of DOLCE and the Descriptions and Situations
> reification vocabulary:
>
> - Gangemi, Catenacci, Ciaramita, Lehmann:
> Modelling Ontology Evaluation and Validation, ESWC 2006:
> http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/ESWC_GangemiEtAl_Final2.pdf.
>
> - Gangemi, Catenacci, Ciaramita, Lehmann:
> Qood grid: A metaontology-based framework for ontology evaluation and
> selection, EON 2006:
> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/eon2006/eon2006gangemietal.pdf.
>
> - An OWL ontology for the
> metamodel:
> http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/EVAL/oQual.owl.
>
> Best
> Aldo
>
> At 13:28 -0600 29-01-2007, AJ Chen wrote:
> > Content-type: text/html
> > Content-disposition: inline
> > Content-description: HTML Version of
> > Message
> >
> > Leo, thanks for putting a list of
> > dimensions together. As I suggested earlier, it would be helpful to
> > the discussion if we could drill down these dimensions with examples
> > of existing ontologies or ontologies just made up for the
> > discussion.
> >
> > Working from application development
> > angle, I look at relevant ontologies mainly in two dimensions: (1) the
> > application areas or domains an ontology is design for; and (2) the
> > level of granularity an ontology has. The main purpose of surveying
> > existing ontologies in such a way is for re-using of the existing
> > ontological classes and properties and for increasing the chance for
> > interoperability. And so, my hope here is that we can brainstorm on
> > any possible way that will make the task of comparing ontologies and
> > their classes and properties easier for application developers. More
> > importantly, a clear framework for ontology comparison will
> > potentially help people produce new ontologies that are easier to be
> > reused and integrated.
> >
> > The examples I'm looking at are dublin
> > core, FOAF, vCard, FuGO, EXPO. The questions are:
> >
> > (1) how do we categorize them from
> > application and granularity dimensions?
> >
> > (2) can we identify/develop a common
> > framework that improve our understanding of these different ontologies
> > and thus increase reuse and integration?
> >
> > (2) what suggestions can we make to the
> > owners of the ontologies that will increase the re-usability and
> > interoperability of their new versions of ontologies?
> >
> > Any new thoughts or
> > comments?
> >
> > AJ
> >
> > Quoting "Obrst, Leo J."
> > <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > To begin to address the
> > "typing" of ontology that the Ontology Summit
> > > prospectively would like to address,
> > I'm beginning this new thread. I'd
> > > suggest using the subject line to
> > clearly distinguish any NEW topic, so
> > > that skimmers/samplers/surfers can
> > focus more meaningfully. Why?
> > > Because we really don't yet have
> > metadata-annotated or "semantically"
> > > threaded email -- except for subject
> > lines. For example, currently we
> > > have the topic "ontology as
> > logical theory?".
> > >
> > > I'm bringing forward my suggestion
> > (message dated Thursday, January 25,
> > > 2007 2:14 PM, under the Subject =
> > Re: [ontology-summit] Defining
> > > "ontology"), simply as a
> > strawman, slightly enhanced with a canonical
> > > dimension/feature name (e.g.,
> > Formality) and a scale of values (e.g.,
> > > Informal=0, Formal=1). I don't know
> > if this will prove useful, but let
> > > us know your thoughts. Note that
> > these are not pejorative: the feature
> > > name and the values are relatively
> > arbitrarily chosen (though I have my
> > > own biases).
> > >
> > > Please comment on/modify/trash
> > these. Note if you strongly believe in
> > > one definition or think this effort
> > is not worthwhile or the dimensions
> > > are mischaracterized, please let us
> > all know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dimensions of Ontology
> > Types:
> > >
> > > 1) Formality: Informal (Formality =
> > 0)  vs. Formal (Formality = 1)
> > > 2) Expressivity: Expressivity of the
> > semantic model (i.e., underlying
> > > knowledge
> > > representation language or logic)
> > [No scale determined yet]
> > > 3) Concept-based: Term
> > (Concept-based = 0) vs. concept (real world
> > > referent)(Concept-based =
> > 1)
> > > 4) Mathematical Ordering:
> > Mathematical ordering, structure, definition
> > > of the privileged
> > > parent-child relation: [No scale
> > determined yet]
> > > 5) Application focus/use cases, etc.
> > (part of this is precision of the
> > > service needed, e.g., metadata/topic
> > terms for a document to aid in
> > > broad doc topic retrieval vs. a
> > semantic service query, specfication,
> > > or composition): [No scale
> > determined  yet]
> > > 6) Granularity (precision, scope):
> > [No scale determined yet]
> > > 7) Development Philosophy: Empirical
> > (bottom-up) [0] vs. Rationalist
> > > (top-down) development
> > [1]
> > > methodology (i.e., arbitrary folks
> > add or annotate terms/concepts vs. a
> > > rigorous ontology development) [No
> > scale determined yet; Some
> > > combination? Middle-out? But what
> > does that mean?]
> > > 8) Human-Coded: Human-coded [1] vs.
> > machine-learned/generated [0]
> > > 9) Automated reasoning (and
> > complexity of that, i.e., one could have
> > > transitive closure or subsumption
> > down a subclass graph vs.
> > > theorem-proving): [No scale
> > determined yet]
> > > 10) Descriptive vs. prescriptive
> > (i.e., a commonsense or
> > > conceptually-profligate ontology vs.
> > an ontology that specifies that
> > > this is the way the world is): [No
> > scale determined yet]
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Other criteria perhaps address
> > properties of the content, i.e., Average
> > > density/bushiness: [Probably a real
> > scale, once we define density,
> > > bushiness], etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some notes:
> > > 1. Expressivity, Mathematical
> > Ordering, and Automated Reasoning are
> > > probably related.
> > > 2. Application focus/use cases: this
> > is still nearly arbitrary, but I
> > > would like us to think about
> > recall/precision of the application/use
> > > case as perhaps a better scale or
> > paired scales, i.e., [Recall = 0,
> > > Precision = 0] vs. [Recall = 1,
> > Precision = 1], but then we need to
> > > define Recall and Precision. Or
> > there may be some normalized score that
> > > factors both Recall and Precision
> > into a composite real number. Then
> > > again, a better dimension may be
> > application complexity if that can be
> > > agreed on, i.e., Constant, Linear,
> > Logorithmic, Exponential, ...
> > > NP-Complete, ... Of course, if we go
> > with this latter notion, then it
> > > is probably closely related to (1)
> > above, i.e., if a problem is
> > > characterizable as NP-Complete, then
> > there is probably a corresponding
> > > expressivity model requirement. This
> > gets into expressive complexity,
> > > i.e., the correlation between the
> > expressiveness of the language and
> > > complexity of the
> > computation.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > AJ Chen, PhD
> > http://www.web2express.org
> > "Open Data on Semantic
> > Web"
> >
> >
> >  
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/
>

-- 

Aldo Gangemi

Senior Researcher
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +390644161513
aldo.gangemi@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html

icq# 108370336

skype aldogangemi

_________________________________________________________________
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/    (01)