Kingsley,
It would be simple enough to create some approximate mappings from
COSMO to other ontologies, though as I mentioned in my earlier note there
are some relations in schema.org for which the logical functionality needs
more elaboration or at least better documentation, and for which no simple
mapping is obvious. But I can't see right now how such a mapping could be
used, since there are no applications that actually use the COSMO ontology. (01)
At this point I can only afford to divert time from the refinement of
COSMO for projects that are actually being used in some practical manner, or
have some chance of developing a practical function in the near future.
Small test cases are unlikely to convince people who are wrestling with
seriously complicated applications to change their methods. (02)
One potential application is in the interoperability of separate
databases. This would require identifying two or more relational databases
where having them function together is worth considerable effort. Then each
database would have to be mapped to a common ontology, and a program to
translate queries or data entries would need to be created. Even if the
databases are not large, demonstration of the translation function could be
very informative for those who cannot easily envision just specifically how
ontologies can serve for interoperability. That's a project I would like to
participate in. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (05)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:19 AM
>To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Schema.org and COSMO
>
>On 2/12/14 3:06 AM, Anatoly Levenchuk wrote:
>> Patrick,
>> It sound as a possible good Hackathon project to me. Do you want to
>> try it in Hackathon form to begin with?
>
>+1
>
>Mapping/Meta/Bridge ontologies are the crucial item here. It is easier
(and
>better) to incorporate schema.org terms into your ontology (which is what
I
>do). Once you have your own mappings, they can be used as inference rules
>that are aligned with your own "context lenses" (so to
>speak) on relevant data.
>
>My earlier post about owl:equivalentClass based reasoning & inference [1]
>demonstrates this approach in action.
>
>BTW -- do you have a URL for a document that describes your ontology?
>
>Links:
>
>[1] http://bit.ly/MyzbAh -- equivalent class based reasoning & inference
>
>
>Kingsley
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Anatoly
>>
>>> -----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/
>>
>>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Kingsley Idehen
>Founder & CEO
>OpenLink Software
>Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|