I agree Todd, and I'm not sure where this should be placed, but I see many
application areas not yet addressed that require complex semantics and logical
Ontologies. Advanced decision support, situational awareness, information
fusion, natural language understanding, automated training/tutoring, etc. (01)
I think the Track 3 Synthesis is on the right track, so to speak. But I know of
very complex applications related to the above, as no doubt most of us do. (02)
Yes, "what" does come first, and I would suggest complex "what". Where it fits
is a good question. Perhaps it is already there? However, "how" is kind of
constrained to our purposes here, which is not to use genetic algorithms, e.g.,
but ontologies and automated reasoning. (03)
Thanks,
Leo (04)
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command & Control
Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (05)
(06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J Schneider
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Making the case for formal ontology and deep
semantics [was - Proceedings: Ontology Summit 2011: "Synthesis and Reports" ...] (07)
Leo, (08)
If your suggestion, "...emphasize formal ontology and deep
semantics" is in reference to the Ontology Summit 2011,
then I would ask where or when would this emphasis be
made (as part of making the case)? (09)
As was suggested during the Track 3 Synthesis, there
should be layer/levels of increasing detail based on
the audience to which ontologies and semantics technologies
are being promoted. But the starting point has to be
the business/operational problem to be solved, the 'what'.
The 'how' or its details comes later or not at all, again
depending on the audience. (010)
Todd (011)
From:
"Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
04/04/2011 03:51 PM
Subject:
Re: [ontology-summit] Making the case for formal ontology and deep
semantics [was - Proceedings: Ontology Summit 2011: "Synthesis and
Reports" ...]
Sent by:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
I too think we need to more emphasize formal ontology and deep semantics. (013)
However, I do not think the use of SQL qualifies as formal ontology and
deep semantics, though applications which build and use formal ontologies
and deep semantics will undoubtedly use SQL, along with SPARQL, logic
programming, etc. One does not perform inference using SQL, though one can
use an inference engine which uses SQL as a query language. (014)
Thanks,
Leo (015)
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command &
Control Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (016)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:04 PM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Making the case for formal ontology and
deep semantics [was - Proceedings: Ontology Summit 2011: "Synthesis and
Reports" ...] (017)
Dear John, (018)
I was not explicit enough. (019)
> MW
> > Whilst I agree that the use of deep semantics has been neglected in
> this
> > summit, I do not think that your characterisation of terminology
> work, LOD,
> > and other shallow semantics as "low hanging fruits" is accurate. I
> think a
> > more accurate characterisation would be that these are most of all
> the fruit
> > there are, but that there are also some exotic fruit that use deep
> > semantics. (020)
JS
> Matthew and Mike are right about what is being done with the methods
> available for the Semantic Web, but that is my major criticism of
> the Semantic Web: it uses only a tiny fraction of the technology
> that was developed for AI, NLP, *and* commercial IT. (021)
MW: I was picking up on Peter's statement, but also intending to include
not
just SW technologies, but also SQL based systems, in particular where
relatively simple things like identity management through things like
Master
Data Management are concerned in support of data integration.
>
> Matthew called the AI technology other than OWL "exotic", but
> that is only true if you define the Semantic Web as "mainstream".
> However, we would not need this Ontology Summit if the SW were
> truly mainstream. (022)
MW: The problems with analogy... My main point was that the use of
inferencing engines is relatively rare compared to all the SQL data that
needs to be integrated. I certainly don't count OWL as mainstream yet. (023)
>
> I do agree with Matthew that shallow semantics and LOD are
> "low hanging fruit" for some kinds of applications. But those
> are new applications that are very different from traditional IT.
>
...
> SQL is not exotic, it is very low-hanging fruit, it is intimately
> integrated with mainstream IT, and it runs many more commercial
> web sites than OWL. If anybody asked me which would survive
> longer -- SQL or OWL -- I would not bet on OWL. (024)
MW: And it is what I was thinking of, even if I did not get the words
right.
(I think it was Yogi Bera who was quoted as saying "Why do they always
print
what I say, rather than what I mean!") (025)
Regards (026)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (027)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011 (029)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (030)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011 (031)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (032)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (033)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (034)
|