Patrick,
It sound as a possible good Hackathon project to me. Do you want to try it
in Hackathon form to begin with? (01)
Best regards,
Anatoly (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:34 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
> Subject: [ontology-summit] Schema.org and COSMO
>
> A Response to John Sowa, renamed from the thread "Are there primitive
> concepts":
> [JS] > If you want people to pay more attention to the COSMO ontology,
you
> > might show how COSMO terms can improve the Schema.org definitions.
> >
> I am willing to work with anyone who is implementing an ontology in
some
> practical application, provided that we can find a way to test proposed
> improvements and use some objective metric to decide whether the
> application does in fact work better.
>
> I took a look at the OWL version of the schema.org ontology, and
although
> there are reasonable (and sketchy) structures within the hierachy, there
> appear to be significant problems from a logical perspective. Just one
> example:
>
> There is a class 'CreativeWork' ("The most generic kind of creative
work,
> including books, movies, photographs, software programs, etc.") with a
> subtype (via "MediaObject") of 'AudioObject' (An audio file.). OK so far.
> *BUT* there is also a relation 'audio' which relates 'CreativeWork' as
> domain to 'AudioObject' as range.
> Since the Class 'AudioObject' is already a subclass of 'CreativeWork' ,
> this relation does not function as a typical relation should, to relate
two or
> more entities in a manner to add some meaning. Instances of the class
> 'AudioObject' are already thus identified as audio objects, and do not
need
> the 'audio' relation to add more information. It's hard to see why that
> relation would be at all useful.
> Perhaps the ontologist had in mind that a 'CreativeWork' would be an
> abstract class and 'AudioObject' is a physical object that is a
representation
> of an 'AudioObject' that can be played on an audio device.
> But that is not what the ontology says. In fact, I can't find any
distinction
> between a 'CreativeWork' (which, if it is to be a named individual such as
> "Star Wars" must be abstract with multiple physical
> embodiments) and the physical embodiments themselves, such as tapes,
> DVDs, books, still images, movie film strips, or computer files. If there
is no
> distinction, then there is no obvious way to relate the many different
physical
> exemplars of a creative work to each other.
>
> I will be happy to suggest alternatives that make more sense (to me)
> logically, but that is only one of what may be many issues.
>
> I will be happy to discuss such issues with the developers of schema.org,
**or
> any other ontology**, but unless someone in the developing group actually
> suggests some specific way I can be of help, and has an application to
provide
> a metric of utility, I would not take the initiative, but should continue
> working on the COSMO itself for the immediate future. There are still
> refinements that need to be made before I would want to use it in a
complex
> application like Natural Language, one of my primary goals. COSMO as is
> may be adequate for less complex applications.
>
> Pat
>
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA Inc.
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 1-908-561-3416
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:17 PM
> >To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Are there primitive concepts?
> >
> >Pat and Andrea,
> >
> >PC
> >> I think we can agree that there will be newly discovered aspects of
>>
> reality that change our perceptions of what now seem to be primitive >>
> concepts. So the inventory of "primitives" may change over time.
> >
> >That depends on what you mean by change. If you select something like
> the >Longman's set of defining terms, then they can be relatively stable
> >-- but only because their meaning is very loosely defined.
> >
> >Andrea stated that point quite clearly:
> >
> >AW
> >> I was advocating under-specifying related (but not fundamental) >>
> concepts in your modules (such as the Location concept in the Person >>
> ontology example). Then combine modules that "complete" the >> under-
> specified concepts - where the modules that you include are >>
consistent
> with your use cases and micro-theories ...
> >
> >The Schema.org terms are a large and growing set of useful but
> >underspecified terms. Right now, those terms are defined by English
texts
> >that resemble OWL comments more than formal definitions.
> >
> >If you want people to pay more attention to the COSMO ontology, you you
> >might show how COSMO terms can improve the Schema.org definitions.
> >
> >John
> >
> >__________________________________________________________
> >_______
> >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/ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|