For anyone who missed it, Jack Ring contributed a fabulous example of reuse,
attached here as a JPEG. (01)
* Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> [2014-03-10 10:12-0700]
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Gary Berg-Cross wrote:
>
> > The Basic point that John makes about reuse is one that I agree with and is
>important to this discussion of
> > reusing semantic content in Big Data, Semantic Web and LOD applications:
> >
> > Different kinds of applications have different requirements for ontology.
>There is no such thing as a common
> > definition of reusability or interoperability that can cover all the
>versions.
> >
> > One useful task for this track discussion is to provide illuminating
>examples of these different requirements.
> > There is perhaps some degree of generality that might be found within
>particular types of applications.
> >
> > John>For ontologies, an underspecified ontology such as Schema.org can
> > be reused in many applications on different platforms. Some OWL
> > ontologies are easy to move -- provided that they don't use anything
> > beyond Aristotle -- eg, the GoodRelations ontology, which was moved
> > to Schema.org.
> >
> > Here I wonder if we would be selling our experience and understanding short.
> > Haven't we made progress on understanding several areas of semantic
>relations that
> > can be reused. Distinctions among different types of Part relations come
>to mind and
> > are post-Aristotle.
> >
> > In addition I would suggest that we can leverage some existing conceptual
>structures (apologies for
> > reusing your phrase lightly of discussion purposes) such as found in
>domains to connect concepts.
> > The link of diagnosis-illness-genes mentioned by Michel is perhaps one
>obvious idea to leverage.
> >
> > The junk yard metaphor of piece reuse is not one that had occurred to me
>and
> > I'm not sure how far we would take this in terms of granular parts and what
>I have expressed above
> > suggests rummaging around for useful grains in perhaps a semi-organized
>antique store.
> >
> > I'm sure that others will have comments on these topics as well as other
>parts of John's comments and
> > this would be useful for the Track and Summit as a whole. So have at it.
> >
> > Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
> > gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
> > NSF INTEROP Project
> > http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
> > SOCoP Executive Secretary
> > Knowledge Strategies
> > Potomac, MD
> > 240-426-0770
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:20 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > I agree:
> >
> > > We had another great session on Thursday (Mar-6) ... Track-A:
> > > Common Reusable Semantic Content-II - Experiences in Knowledge
> > > Sharing: Lessons from research and experience in Big Data,
> > > Linked Data and Semantic Web Applications.
> >
> > But I changed the subject line of this thread to reflect some
> > issues that came up in the questions (both oral and typed).
> >
> > Basic point: Different kinds of applications have different
> > requirements for ontology. There is no such thing as a common
> > definition of reusability or interoperability that can cover
> > all the versions.
> >
> > In fact, there is no common definition of 'reuse' or 'interoperable'
> > that covers all the ways that artifacts of any kind -- physical
> > or computational -- can be used or reused.
> >
> > Physically, there is very little reuse, except as spare parts from
> > junkyards. And they're mainly used to replace identical or nearly
> > identical parts in objects for which the manufacturers *planned*
> > in advance to have a modest amount of reusability.
> >
> > Computationally, the situation is similar: parts can only be reused
> > on the same platform. You can build parts on a general platform,
> > such as Posix, and convert them to other platforms. But if you build
> > on a very specialized platform (eg, Windows or Apple), you can only
> > reuse the parts on variations of the same platform.
> >
> > You can move data across platforms. But the more structure there
> > is in the data, the harder it is to move. Just imagine the problems
> > of moving an SQL database from Oracle to DB2. Even moving a PDF file
> > to a DOC or HTML file is nontrivial. You either get a very buggy
> > version, or you get a clean version by brute force: convert each
> > PDF page to JPG and embed it in a DOC or HTML wrapper.
> >
> > For ontologies, an underspecified ontology such as Schema.org can
> > be reused in many applications on different platforms. Some OWL
> > ontologies are easy to move -- provided that they don't use anything
> > beyond Aristotle -- eg, the GoodRelations ontology, which was moved
> > to Schema.org.
> >
> > Any ontology that has more detail can only be reused within the
> > platform it was designed for. RDF and RDFS are so limited that
> > anything defined in them can be very underspecified -- and
> > therefore "easier" to reuse.
> >
> > But people can and do use RDF and RDFS with a large amount of local
> > "conventions". But those conventions are an informal ontology whose
> > details are specified only in the comments. The problems of reusing
> > such data are the same as the problems of reusing any structured data
> > with some specialized, idiosyncratic, poorly defined structure.
> >
> > John
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> >
> > For the slides, audio, and chat from the session, see the archives:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_03_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/
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/
> (02)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
--
-ericP (04)
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (05)
(eric@xxxxxx)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution. (06)
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper. (07)
Jack Ring - Beware of Re-use?.jpg
Description: JPEG image
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|
