|
Thanks Andrea for your response.
Clearly a more elaborate solution will make more sense. So for the ontology O managing only the concept of o:Organization we will mediate the corresponding concepts from the two other ontologies since it is a common concept, even though having different roles. The elaboration would be the additional ontological conditions for identifying what is an organization in each of these ontologies, and their properties so that O will end up with the proper data from both. Note that with "both" I mean the union of O1 and O2 of my earlier entry in this thread. It would be a challenge that can even be considered an initial benchmark to compare approaches to this problem: CHALLENGE: Given two RDF databases, each having a different governing ontology for its semantics, having some concept of an "Organization". Task is to extract from them the list of all organizations, with some important agreed properties. Lets work with the data-sets that Kingsley started out with. EVALUATION: The criteria of success would be: A. level of correctness of the results, B. level of completeness of the results, C. performance of the solution, say execution time. Per challenge C, I would factor out the network communication overhead. Regards, Uri Shani, PhD Research Staff Member SPRINT(lead), DANSE (lead) Projects
From: Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Date: 10/02/2014 05:26 AM Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology driven Data Integration using owl:equivalentClass relations Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Uri, Your examples and explanations are consistent with the pattern that I have been advocating ... But, in my scenario, I am closer to advocating your "alternate" solution. For me, the A ontology is the Person ontology (that includes an Organization concept), and defines nothing more about Organizations than that a Person can be a member of one. The B ontology is focused on Organizations and defines nothing more about Persons than that the concept exists and Persons can be members of the Organization. (In fact, there may be several different possible A/Person and B/Organization ontologies that represent different contexts of these concepts ... where I as the ontology developer choose the correct A and B ontologies/modules that are consistent with my needs.) My "mediating/integrating" ontology indeed bridges A and B as you describe. Andrea On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Uri Shani <SHANI@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hello Kingsley and friends. I'd like to open here a clean page in reference of your suggested solution in http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2014-02/msg00117.html#nid09. I do that since the mailing chain is pretty hard to follow by now.... :) The problem example you state is to reason about the concept 'Organization' over two different (but related) ontologies A and B where a:Ogranization and b:Organization represent close and possibly semantically equivalent concepts. Your solution is to define "integrating ontology" C which imports the two ontologies A and B, and defines the triple [a:Organization owl:equivalentClass b:Organization .], which will now allow to reason with C about this concept as an integration over A and B. Objections to that approach have been that there will be conflicts among A and B that will entangle that reasoning in C and possibly fail it or produce mistakes. I would add to this that this will also add much overhead and inefficiently slow process. Alternative solution suggestion: Lets define a common ontology O in which we have a single concept o:Organization. Now we define "integrating" ontologies AO and BO to bridge A and B with O: AO imports both A and O, and defines the triple [a:Organization owl:equivalentClass o:Organization .] BO imports both B and O, and defines the triple [b:Organization owl:equivalentClass o:Organization .] The bridges work as two separate mediators between A and B to a "common" ontology in which all organizations in A and in B will be a o:Organization rather than a a:Organization or a a:Organization, respectively. How is this useful? It depends on your application: We will build two mediation "networks": one flowing models of A to O1 (a model in ontology O), using the integrating ontology AO, and another from B to O2 (another model in ontology O), using BO. These are like views of the original models. At this point one can work on a federated data-set over the two models O1 and O2, being of the same ontology. That is an analogy to what happens in DBMS where schema play the role of ontologies. The power of the mediation process is in more elaborate examples, where O may be covering many more important concepts than just Organization, and represent a meaningful knowledge about organizations that overlaps A and B (and possibly many more ontologies in this domain). Models in O can be transformed (mediated) from all these ontologies, and what is interesting here: also mediated back to their original ontologies. The "combining" ontology is in our terminology - a "Mediation Rule" ontology. About our problem domain: We deal with interoperability among engineering design tools, where we wish to share models in one tool with models in another tool, with no limit of the umber of tools. So we defined a hierarchy of commonality among ontologies and with the mediation rules ontologies we are able to mediate models between specific tools and models in the common ontology - back and forth. For instance, a model in the SysML language is mediated to a tool implementing the Modelica equations modeling method - and back creating a collaborative process among engineers working on these two very different tools on the same engineering design. So, I suggest to apply the same approach to the problem discussed in this mail thread. For more, see our paper: H. Broodney, U. Shani, A. Sela, “Model Integration – Extracting Value from MBSE,” in MBSE, INCOSE International Symposium 2013, Philadelphia, U.S (best paper): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255720194_Model_Integration__Extracting_Value_from_MBSE Regards, Uri Shani, PhD Research Staff Member SPRINT(lead), DANSE (lead) Projects
_________________________________________________________________ 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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) | ||||||||
