Peter, (01)
I just reviewed the section of the 2008 Ontology Summit
Communique you referenced and I interpret this/these
gate keeping criteria as a subset of quality control.
Whether all quality controls are implemented through
the 'gate keeper' (as I suggested) is another question. (02)
With respect to the OOR specification development, I
suggest we not try to resolve this issue immediately.
But we should keep in mind John's suggestion and
anticipate where these capabilities would be implemented. (03)
Todd (04)
From:
Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
To:
Todd J Schneider <todd.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
03/30/2011 07:24 PM
Subject:
Re: [oor-forum] OOR architecture & API Workshop-III - Fri 2011.03.25
Sent by:
peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx (05)
Todd, (06)
Slightly off the topic in question here, but I would like to point out
the following ... (07)
> [TS] ... OOR gate keeping (aka quality control) ... (08)
[ppy] No ... gate keeping != quality control (09)
We had clear notions of what they are (and what gatekeeping entails),
as discussed and deliberated during OntologySummit2008 (I still
remember Barry Smith bringing up that notion, and a lot of discussion
were made, before coming to a consensus.)
See:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_Communique#nid1GV5 (010)
I think part of the confusion comes from Ken's student labeling the
workflow control software "keeper" (or "gatekepper"). I guess if we
suggest to Ken that they rename that module, and we all stay on that
which was stated on the OntologySummit2008_Communique, things will be
clearer. (011)
Regards. =ppy
-- (012)
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Todd J Schneider
<todd.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response.
>
> The primary, or at the initial, goals of the OOR are to
> provide repository for 'good' ontologies, where an 'ontology'
> is something represented in one of the standardized
> representation languages and has been passed through
> the OOR gate keeping (aka quality control) process.
>
> Now this gate keeping process will at least provide some
> simple correctness checks. Additional 'goodness' checks
> will represent best practices (e.g., inclusion of annotations).
>
> In addition to gate keeping Ken Baclawski introduced the
> notion of work flow. The ability to enforce common vocabularies
> across a domain are beyond the scope of current requirements
> and expectations. However, I could this as specified via
> policies and enforced as a work flow. Of course the enforcement
> of these more global policies would be 'expensive' (from a
> computational point).
>
> One of the architecture principles for the OOR is
> modularity. So if we create the specification correctly
> and conform to the current requirements and principles,
> the OOR should be able to accommodate the addition of a
> capability that provides enforcement of a common domain
> vocabulary.
>
> Leo Obrst has brought up the issue of a configuration for
> ontologies. By this, to my understanding, he has in mind
> aspects of ontological architecture, dependencies and
> required imports and such. So the notion that an ontology
> has to conform to a particular vocabulary could be part of
> such a configuration.
>
> Todd (013)
> From:
> "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date:
> 03/26/2011 11:04 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [oor-forum] OOR architecture & API Workshop-III - Fri 2011.03.25
> Sent by:
> oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Tim and Todd,
>
> When I asked those questions, I actually thought that the answers
> were fairly straightforward, at least for the first four.
> But I believe that these issues (or some variation or extension
> of them) need to be resolved at an early stage in the design.
>
>>> 1. What is an ontology?
>> --->>> The OOR is not attempting to explicitly define what an
>> ontology is or isn't.
>
> Following is my definition, which covers every formal ontology
> I've seen:
>
> A formal ontology is a theory, stated in some version of logic,
> that specifies the semantics of a set of types and relations.
>
>>> > 2. What is a terminology?
>> --->>> Again, I don't think OOR will try to explicitly (or implicitly)
>> define this.
>
> My definition:
>
> A terminology is a set of terms (words or phrases) in some natural
> language with informal definitions stated in a natural language.
> Some relations among the terms may also be specified, such as
> 'more general than', 'more specialized than', or 'disjoint with'.
>
>>> > 3. How are ontologies and terminologies related?
>> --->>> OOR won't explicitly address this.
>
> A formal ontology may be specified as a formalization of
> a terminology by relating each term to types and relations
> specified by the formal theory of that ontology. Each of
> the relations among the terms must also be formalized by
> relations defined in the same version of logic.
>
>>> > 4. What is the underlying semantics of an ontology, and
>>> > how is it related to the semantics of a terminology?
>> --->>> OOR won't explicitly address this.
>
> The formal semantics of any ontology is defined by the model
> theoretic semantics of the logic in which it is specified.
> The formal definitions should be more precise than the NL
> definitions in the terminology, but they should be consistent
> with the expected interpretation of the NL definitions by the
> people who use those terms.
>
>>> > 5. When the same terminology is related to different ontologies,
>>> > the same words may have different definitions in each of
>>> > the ontologies. How are the discrepancies noted?
>> --->>> OOR won't explicitly address this.
>
> The answer to this question is somewhat more complex. My recommendation
> is to allow multiple formal ontologies at different levels of detail
> to specify some or all of the terms in the terminology.
>
> This procedure is commonly done in practice because different
> people in the same organization may use the same terms in different
> contexts with different amounts of detail and different sets of
> relations among the terms.
>
> Examples:
>
> 1. In a hospital, doctors, nurses, technicians, pharmacists,
> patients, orderlies, and administrative personnel may use
> the same terms, but with different levels of detail.
>
> 2. Different departments in the same company may have some
> common terminology, but with varying levels of detail:
> Engineering, manufacturing, sales, finance, human resources,
> shipping, maintenance, etc.
>
> I discuss point #5 in terms of a hierarchy of theories. For a brief
> summary of the issues, see slides 61 to 80 of the following:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss.pdf
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (015)
|