|
"...it is about interoperability not about "one single view"...it is about
interoperability not about having one single ontology...This is not about
imposing one single view. This is about interoperability".
Interoperability is a critical idea needing depth and breadth and
common foundation framework.
Its extent is as wide as railways, public safety, government,
telecommunications, medical industry, business, and software. Its depth as
different as physical interoperability, business process interoperability,
computing interoperability, information interoperability, syntactic
interoperability, semantic interoperability, or conceptual interoperability; or
industrial, national, international or global interoperability. For example, for
the information exchange interoperability, there are nation-level programs as EU
Interoperability Framework, USA NIEM, or UK e-GIF.
Interoperability in general implies common standard, formats,
categorizations and integration, unifying models and schemas, like as
the software interoperability - the same data formats, the same protocols, and
the same binary codes.
The General Interoperability Framework looks closely connected
with a world/domain reference model as a common foundation ontology. What
ideally makes an all-purpose world model/schema providing the foundation basis
for specialized domains as well as supporting various forms and levels of
interoperability.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28
PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Official
Communique Feedback Thread
"Who will keep the N-squared mappings up to date, for an N that
is increasing, if AGC gets his way, without limit? Who will pay for this ever
increasing mapping effort? Who will oversee the mapping effort? " are the
ontology gate keepers going to address all requirements? even those from
people whose projects dont have anything to do with who ever is paying them
(the gate keepers).
this is not "my way" or "your way". the question could also be presented
the other way around: Who will pay for this ever increasing coordination
effort involving all domains, several countries, several communities of
practice following several practices, a diversity of requirements,
etc.
"One day we will, I hope, know which language to use"
only JAVA? only Python? PERL is forbidden? only OWL? only OBO?
programming languages are picked depending on the purpose, skills
available in your team, pre existing data, reusable code, and a lot of other
factors. some times when developing software having one single language is
just impossible (pre existing software, software to be re used,
etc). it is about interoperability not about "one single view". Ontologies are
mostly pieces of software, why not learning from software development instead
of trying to go someones way? again, it is about interoperability not about
having one single ontology. Even from within the biomedical domain it is easy
to see how interoperability has contributed to the evolution of
bioinformatics, see biojava, biopython, bioperl, etc. should there be one
single bio<programming language>? no... should there be bridges across
these bio projects? sure. could one single bio project cover all my
needs? depends but most likely not.
This is not about imposing one single view. This is about
interoperability.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Garcia Castro <alexgarciac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Barry Smith: Too many
ontologies are creating semantic silios, we need only one ontology per
domain, and can only afford one."
Did he say that?
"one ontology per domain"? I dont like that idea; also, it seems
unpractical.
It is already being put into practice in the biomedical
domain:
see also:
what if the
ontology does not cover the domain in the way u need it?
The developers of the OBO Foundry ontologies commit to collaborate with
their users and to work with them to extend the OBO Foundry ontologies when
needed ; all of these Foundry ontology development efforts have term request
trackers for this purpose.
it happens very
often that u need to extend existing ontologies, it also happens that such
extensions involve the definition of several axioms, rules and at the end
u get a significantly different ontology -a violation to the one
ontology and one ontology only.
For this approach to work, the extension has of course to be done
carefully, and in a coordinated fashion. The fact that people violate the
one-ontology-per-domain principle seems not to be an argument against this
principle.
if you consider the
upper level ontologies (BFO, DOLCE), so should we all stick to one of them
and support one of them only?
At the point where one of them has demonstrated that it is good enough
for this purpose, yes. And I think the developers of these ontologies would
be ready to accept the needed merger (I think this is true of the BFO and
DOLCE developers, for instance).
also impractical.
not to mention that upper level ontologies like BFO and the like are not
always used when developing ontologies -in some papers the actual need for
such ontologies has been discussed.
Do you have examples of major cross-disciplinary practical success in
integration which do not involve some upper-level ontology?
What about the
representation language? should it also be "one language only"? if
this is the case, also unpractical.
One day we will, I hope, know which language to use. (Just as we know
which language to use for arithmetic.) When that stage is reached everyone
intending to do sensible ontology work will, surely, be likely to use the
common representation language.
silos, sure there
are silos. but having one single ontology does not solve the problem.
actually IMHO it does not solve anything. it could probably be a good idea
to address the issue of interoperability across ontologies rather
than pretending to have " one ontology per
domain".
Who will keep the N-squared mappings up to date, for an N that is
increasing, if AGC gets his way, without limit? Who will pay for this ever
increasing mapping effort? Who will oversee the mapping effort?
BS
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Brand Niemann
<bniemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Introduction
I am
Brand Niemann, Semantic Community, and recently completed 30 years of
federal services at the US EPA as senior enterprise architect and data
science. I am interested in the role of ontology in semantic
interoperability and the application of semantic interoperability to
major applications like Federal Cloud Computing, Enterprise Architecture
and SOA, and Knowledge Management and Computational Journalism. Mills
Davis and I are restarting the Semantic Interoperability Community of
Practice (SICoP) and are trying to do at least one activity each month –
please see our Events Calendar at http://semanticommunity.info/#Events_Calendar . We
look forward to collaborating with you.
Comments During the First
Morning
There
are two simple concepts expressed during presentations by the two major
government-funded ontology programs (EU and US JPDO) that I have yet to
hear mentioned as follows:
1.Ontolog Forum, March 17th,
Perspective from the European Commission
SteveRay: Ah - good quote: "The
need comes first, ontologies come later"
See
Chat Log: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_03_17#nid2QHC
2.
Ontology Driven Implementation of Semantic Services for the Enterprise
Environment (ODISSEE) Workshop, April 19, 2011
Barry
Smith: Too many ontologies are creating semantic silios, we need only
one ontology per domain, and can only afford one.
See: http://semanticommunity.info/Build_TOGAF_in_the_Cloud#Ontology_Driven_Implementation_of_Semantic_Services.c2.a0for_the_Enterprise_Environment_(ODISSEE)_Workshop
and
specifically Barry Smith at http://semanticommunity.info/Build_TOGAF_in_the_Cloud#Barry_Smith
and the
summary slides I sent previously at http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/files/10494/=BrandNiemann04142011.pptx
So
there are questions of sequencing and number of ontologies that need to
be addressed.
Grand
Challenges
I think
the Ontology Community should engage in Challenges and Competitions (not
the Grand Challenge) especially say for health data. I have participated
in three so far and have not seen any using ontology – see http://semanticommunity.info/Build_the_Health_Data_Infrastructure_in_the_Cloud
Brand
_________________________________________________________________
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/
-- Alexander Garcia http://www.alexandergarcia.name/http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.htmlhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciacPostal
address: Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211Universität
Bremen Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5 D-28359
Bremen
_________________________________________________________________
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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/
-- Alexander Garcia http://www.alexandergarcia.name/http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.htmlhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciacPostal
address: Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211 Universität
Bremen Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5 D-28359 Bremen
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|