| To: | Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| From: | "John Yanosy Jr." <jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:29:37 -0600 |
| Message-id: | <CAMyHDHgf7+e2J_2YdHcbD+NEBAeeYWTUg-dHFsn_v8svqdd6Lw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Hans, John, Andrea, Some not very well investigated ideas, for possible investigation. Basically I am looking for the ability to represent and query the type of Entity relationships between ontologies as well as compute a metric that would help classify the aggregation of these relationships in a meaningful manner.
It may be useful to consider some possible set theoretic and specialization/generalization relationships between ontologies when considering their reuse. Though I believe that metadata about the ontology could prove useful, i.e., Dublin Core like, it might also be useful to clarify the relationships between the internal elements of these ontologies in some mathematical form, that lends itself to logical queries as well as numerical metrics.
Some possible relationships are: Entity Relationship Combinations I. Entity E-OA = E-OB II. Entity E-OA sub of E-OB III. Entity E-OB sub of E-OA
IV. Entity E-OA not related to E-OB either sub or equal Set Theoretic Relationship Note: (The following are easy to consider when the Entities under analysis follow rule I, or rule IV above, i.e., are equal or not related. But if the entities are related semantically but are not equivalent than the question is whether the set theoretic relationship are still useful.)
1. Ontology A reuses some Entities of ontology B (OB). Neither OA or OB subsumes the other. In this case I believe that the entity relationships under consideration(E-OA, E-OB) could either be II or III, and in fact there may be a mix of these all three relationship types, I, II, or III.
2. OA is a subset of OB (All Entities OA are in OB - possibly OA) (I would assume that in most cases the entity relationships would be a mix of I and II. Some sort of domain specialization is occurring among most of the entities reused from OB, but some are also used fully.
3. OB is a subset of OA (This could be like 2, but also adds additional entities to further domain specialize OA.) 4. OA = OB (Fully equivalent - not sure why this would occur except when some renaming or specializing occurs between some classes and properties)
A numerical metric might be defined based on these set theoretic and semantic relationships. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- Peace be with you,
John A. Yanosy Jr. Mobile: 214-336-9875 eMail: jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jyanosyjr
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
| Previous by Date: | [ontology-summit] Request for participants to confine statements of fact or opinion to subject areas in which they have training or expertise, and to please ignore repeat offenders (was: Re: [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem), Simon Spero |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] OWl and Knowledge reuse via import and modularization, John F Sowa |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of Ontologies, Hans Polzer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of Ontologies, Andrea Westerinen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |