Andrea,
I’m not sure what you had in mind for an “integrating ontology”, but for the purpose of interoperability, among which is the function of relating ontologies to each other, I expect that that purpose would be served optimally by a foundation ontology (“upper ontology”) that has all of the logical structures necessary to create logical specifications of all of the terms in all of the ontologies that want to interoperate. Such a foundation ontology would serve as an “interlingua” into which any other ontology (or data base of data structure) could be translated, and subsequently re-translated into any other ontology whose terms are logically specified using the terms and structures of the foundation ontology. That is the intended function of the COSMO ontology which I am building. The COSMO is intended to include representations of at least the full set of primitive concepts that are needed to specify the intended meaning of any elements of a domain ontology that needs to integrate with others. Focus on the primitives keeps the foundation ontology to the smallest possible size that will serve its function; and that small size makes it easier to learn and use. The COSMO is presently in OWL, and needs to be translated into FOL and supplemented with additional axioms. I am still creating mappings from elements to WordNet synsets of similar meaning, and to the LDOCE defining vocabulary to make it useful for Natural Language applications. The current version of the ontology (“COSMO.owl”) and some documents describing it can be obtained from the directory at:
http://micra.com/COSMO
The great virtue of using an interlingua ontology and translations to and from, for interoperability is that this allows local users of databases or ontology-based applications to use their own terminology and procedures freely, and only translate what needs to be communicated. So that in any user group, no matter how large, only one person needs to be bilingual in both the local terminology and the common foundation ontology.
The first versions of COSMO is intended to include at least all representations of the senses used for the 2200 words used in the Longman dictionary to define the terms in that dictionary. This is considered (by me) as a reasonable first approximation to a full set of primitives. There are more than one sense used for a number of those words, and to avoid forcing users to define common complex terms, some non-primitive terms are included. So that the current version contains almost 8000 classes (types) and 1000 relations.
This may seem somewhat large to be “the most easy to learn and use”, but one needs to realize that the function of being able to describe any concept one wants to use in an application requires a vocabulary that has the full range of the basic vocabulary of a human language. Learning this is eminently feasible when a person is properly motivated, as one can easily see from the number of non-native English speakers who learn English so as to be able to communicate within any of many international communities (including ontolog). And remember, only one person per user group needs to be adequately bilingual.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McClure
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 7:39 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Ontology of Ontologies
What would an "integrating" ontology actually look like? I mean basically we're naming ontology design patterns here, correct? With the idea of aligning said patterns? In this case, I'm hearing an "integrating" ontology is composed of nothing but owl:imports, does not define its own classes, properties or individuals? Whether that's "integrating" may be in the eye of the beholder but what is certain is that it's totally derived from other ontologies, a useful factoid when trying to sort one's way through a thicket.
thx/jmc
On 2/5/2014 2:57 PM, Andrea Westerinen wrote:
John and John,
In as much as the "integrating" ontology is an "ontology about ontologies (and their concepts)" ... yes, it is a meta-ontology. However, I find that people handle the term, "integrating ontology", much better. And, it conveys the purpose (as opposed to being open-ended).
Given that some of my customers view ontologies with some skepticism (they call ontology, the "o-word"), I much prefer avoiding adding scary modifiers onto a scary word. (That is just my experience.)
_________________________________________________________________
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/