Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Reuse of Linked Data vis-a-vis R

[Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Elisa, 

I do recognize that a lot of work went into FIBO to create smaller, more reusable content.  In fact, that was one of the positives that I highlighted in my presentation yesterday [1].  It was straightforward to find concepts and the annotation was amazing!

But, I did find that for many of the more "advanced" topics, there were imports of most of the FIBO Foundational Ontology. For example, People.rdf imported Organizations (and FormalOrganizations), Locations (and Countries and Addresses), Goals, etc.  So, the more interesting topic ended up being rather "inclusive."

Might there be a way to modularize this even more?

Andrea

[1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-01-23_OntologySummit2014_Common-Reusable-Semantic-Content-1/OntologySummit2014-s02_Reuse_ISO15926-FIBO--AndreaWesterinen_20140123.pdf

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Elisa Kendall <ekendall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Andrea and all,

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions, below.  For the work we do at OMG, we are trying very hard to create smaller, reusable ontology "modules" for FIBO, and to make them understandable, not adding any axioms that we can't support for a wide variety of applications, and not including any that the SMEs can't agree on.  We also use a couple of other tests for modularization - whether or not a concept is useful independently, and whether or not its definition might evolve independently, which seem to be holding up in the testing we've done so far on the early FIBO specifications.  Your thoughts on defining axioms based on context are similar to an approach I use for client work with segregating axioms by use case.  I wish more practitioners would think along these lines.

Thanks for weighing in,

Elisa

On 1/24/2014 1:06 PM, Andrea Westerinen wrote:

One of the questions proposed in Track A (Common, Reusable Semantic Content) asks whether the reuse problems (and perhaps their solutions) are different in the Linked Data and ontology spaces.  

Certainly, the uses of the two technologies are different ... as Linked Data is about the "links" and supplying relatively simple semantic annotations and new links ... but ontologies come down to T-boxes (more formal class, relationship and/or axiomatic definitions) and A-boxes (instance definitions).  It is much easier to reuse small, targeted schemas that define Linked Data and various annotations (such as schema.org) than it is to reuse (typically much larger) foundational or domain-specific ontologies.  

In terms of time spent "getting up to speed", small, targeted definitions always win.  However, it is also much more likely to be able to do reasoning over (and more complex analysis of) ontologies and A-boxes.  And, one can more easily combine multiple ontologies (for example, with constructs such as OWL's sameAs, differentFrom, disjointWith, ...) than to combine (or reuse) multiple Linked Data schemas. In my experience, I have seen developers typically pick one schema and just stick with that.

Taking a lesson from the Linked Data world, I would posit that the characteristics that make Linked Data schemas more friendly and reusable could be applied to ontologies.  That would argue for:

 * Smaller, more modular, targeted ontology fragments

 * Separation of semantic (class and relationship) definitions from the axioms that prescribe them 

 * (Perhaps) Definition of a context in which the axioms apply (and the assumption that there may be more than 1 context and therefore more than one set of axioms)

Another lesson that the ontology world must learn is that the fragments must be vetted, have real uses and sponsors, and not devolve to multitudes of overlapping and (sometimes) contradictory proposals.  (I think that the biomed BioPortal community has done a good job with this.)

What do you think?

Andrea Westerinen

T: 425.891.8407

arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx or andreaw@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AndreaWesterinen

 
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

--

Andrea Westerinen

T: 425.891.8407

arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx or andreaw@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AndreaWesterinen

organizingknowledge.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)