|
Hi Ali,
Thanks for the detailed response. I agree with Ron that you should consider putting this up on the wiki!
The Ontology Design Tool use case takes an ontology repository as input, along with input from a user, to generate an ontology as an output. Both Semantic Mapping Tool uses cases take an ontology repository as input, along with mapping axioms input from a user, and generate an interpretation of the "Similarity" and "Differences" between ontologies. Although these are certainly useful use cases, they don't address my original questions. To clarify, I will restate my questions:
1) Are there use cases that describe uses of an ontology repository that go beyond the development and sharing of ontologies (i.e. something closer to the eventual end user use cases of the ontologies I guess)?
2) Are there use cases that clearly justify the need for an "Online Repository"? By "Online Repository", I mean an information system deployed on a centralized server somewhere (or cluster) that provides users the ability to CRUD and process repository information in near-real-time. This is in contrast to what I'll refer to here as a "Static Repository". Take the Eclipse open source software project as an example. We may define the Subversion repositories used to manage the Eclipse software artifacts (e.g. source code) as a "Static Repository". Users checkout artifacts from the repository to their own local copy of the repository. Users then CRUD and process their copy of the repository, synchronizing their copy with the maser repository on occasion. Both Online and Static Repositories have merit with the appropriate solution dependent on the intended uses of the repository.
I'm not advocating either approach, but it would be great to see the use cases that clearly justify one approach over the other. I get the sense that we have tacitly decided that an ontology repository must be an Online Repository. However, if there are no specific use cases for an Online Repository then I would recommend that a Static Repository be considered as the effort to deliver a production quality Online Repository is much, much higher. There are all kinds of tools, systems, portals and experience that we could leverage for a Static Repository. There are examples of initiatives that manage some very large collections of engineered software artifacts. The Eclipse Foundation, Apache Foundation and Linux come to mind.
3) Does it make sense to consider ontologies, or their modules, to be engineered software artifacts?
4) Are there significant differences between a collection of CLIF or OWL files and a collection of Java files that force us to consider an entirely different approach to constructing a large collection of such artifacts within a collaborative environment?
Cameron. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I guess I'm struggling to understand the value of ontology
repositories beyond their ability to facilitate the development and
sharing of ontologies. If there isn't any value beyond this, then
what is the need for an "online" repository. Wouldn't a system that
allows for the sharing and collaborative development of static
ontology artifacs (e.g. files) suffice? SourceForge comes to mind.
Perhaps this a naive view, or it has been discussed previously. If
so, some links would be much appreciated.
Cameron.
Kojeware Corporation
Thanks for the question. I can provide three general use cases, and one concrete example.
General Use Case
1) Ontology Design Tool (ODT)
Motivation: I am what an ontologist / knowledge engineer would call a "domain specialist" or a "subject matter expert." I have extensive experience in my field and want to formalize my knowledge. I don't have the time nor desire to become an expert in logic, but I want to be able to express my work in a machine readable format that is shareable with others in my field and might possibly ease interface with those in fields peripherally related to mine.
Goal: Provide a mechanism for a SME to formalize intuitions.
Actors: User + ODT
Triggers: Need for formal axioms
Pre-requisites: COLORE
Solution: Using the inbuilt advantages afforded with a formal language at least as expressive as first order logic, we can communicate with the SME using examples (tarski-models) only, and navigate the repository to find the best set of axioms which correspond to their intuition.
Base Course:
1) The user logs into COLORE. (it only works on COLORE atm)
2) The user names the relation(s) she wishes to formalize
3) User provides at least one example of their relation in "action" - essentially a Tarski style model. The model can be represented visually, or inputted as a plain text (see referenced papers for more on this).
4) ODT searches the ontologies in the repository (COLORE) to find "Core-Hierarchies" and bounds in each hierarchy that match the user's intuition.
5) For each Core Hierarchy, ODT presents a Tarski style model in the same representation that the user inputted.
6) The user decides if this example corresponds to their intuition.
7) repeat 5-6 until search space exhausted
8) Present user with axioms for their intuition.
For a more detailed explanation of how this works, please see Chapter 4 of my Master's thesis, or for a very brief version, this paper: http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/publications/design-repository.pdf , or for something in between, wait for an upcoming journal paper. Chapters 1-3 of the thesis discuss the repository and how the media that is logic on the web allows all this to happen.
========================================
2) Semantic Mapping Tool (SMT) - Same Domain
Motivation: I am an organization who has developed an ontology and would like to interface said ontology with one developed by others. I need to determine what / how and where our ontologies overlap. This works for any number of ontologies, not just two.
Goal: Given test mapping axioms, determine how two or more ontologies are "similar" and "different."
Actors: User + SMT
Triggers: Interoperability
Pre-requisites: COLORE
Solution: Create an image for each target ontology in the repository. Exploit repository structure to determine "similarity" and "difference." Again, this only works on COLORE, and requires at least first order expressivity.
Base Course:
1) User logs into COLORE
2) User provides candidate mapping axioms. I.e. the user guesses that A is related to B, but is unsure how and to what extent, wants to see how A is in fact related to B. (This can also be automated...)
3) SMT generates an image of the user's target ontologies in COLORE, given the mapping axioms
4) SMT analyzes images to determined "Similarity" and "Differences" in the target ontologies
5) SMT provides the user with partial interpretations of the ontologies into one another and into COLORE (in some cases, SMT performs automatic abduction).
For more on this, see chapter 5 of my Master's thesis or alternatively,
wait for an upcoming journal paper. The definition of "Similarity" and "Difference" in the thesis are a bit outdated, you'll have to wait for the journal paper for the most up-to-date definitions.
=======================================
3) Semantic Mapping Tool - Interdisciplinary Discovery / Sharing
Motivation: I want to know if knowledge developed in some other domain is useful for me. Can I reuse work done by others in a seemingly disparate field? Is there a way to get around the research silos and specialized jargons that have popped up? i.e. cell diffusivity and permeability being similar to electrical resistivity... Essentially, I want to discover 'conceptual or structural metaphors' that connect disparate domains to one another.
Goal: Support interdisciplinary knowledge sharing.
Actors: User + SMT
Triggers: Interoperability
Pre-requisites: COLORE
Solution: The exact same as Use Case 2, except the target ontologies are from different domains. Again this exploits a basic advantage that the medium of logic affords us :P
Base Course:
see above use case 2.
======================================
4) Concrete Use Case - Reseed
Reseed is a non-profit organization seeking to transform how people relate to space, land and food. There are three vectors to this organization:
(1) Community Intervention by Example (i.e. actual urban farming)
(2) Education and Knowledge Sharing (relevant to ontolog - the technology side of collecting, collating and sharing gained wisdom)
(3) Effect Policy Change in Government and Business
Very brief overview -- food security is becoming an increasingly important issue; we often fight against nature instead of learning how to best work with it; people in urban environments often don't have a connection to the land they live on, nor are they connected to the provenance of the food they eat.
To address this, reseed wants to incorporate permaculture principles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture ), to bring farming into urban environments. Take a moment and ask why every house has green front lawn? It is a relic from Edwardian England (or before, I forget). A green lawn demonstrated that one was wealthy enough to set aside land for no purpose but to be green and short.... In this day and age, our widespread adoption of lawns seems a bit absurd, especially in light of the resources they divert, consume and larger looming environmental considerations... In effect, in Ontario at least, a green lawn is a forest in its infancy. It is why weeds love it, as they are nature's way of trying to increase the biomass density en route to re-establishing a forest, and ultimately, it is why they present an ecological and economic drain... But I'm beginning to digress.
Basically, the relevant (to ontolog) technology integration strategy of reseed includes developing an online knowledge resource for people to share their experiences of urban farming, and for new comers to learn the basic principles and apply them to their local context. For example, wisdom from the Amerindians that almost disappeared with their genocide a few hundred years ago, suggested that Corn, Beans, Squash and a few other plants should be grown together. The corn grows quickly and provides a base for the beans to sprout, while the squash, broccoli etc. provide protection to the roots of these plants from hard rain and larger creatures. All three together help mitigate the need for leaving land fallow... Anyway, capturing and sharing this knowledge is valuable.
Not only that, but being able to take as input certain contextual (i.e. local) variables regarding climate: i.e rainfall, temperature, humidity etc. allows our system to suggest a number of plants and farming strategies for someone looking to apply the collectively learned wisdom to their local contexts.
So to make this more concrete for OOR, Reseed is looking to explore all plant, farming, seed ontologies from the perspective of supporting local farming initiatives. This means:
1) Being able to do a search on related ontologies
2) Be able to browse them to determine if they address our needs.
3) Be able to extract, reuse and/or extend axioms if relevant
4) Create pointers to and from said ontologies
5) Develop a new ontology to support the rest of our technology integration
So it is a combination of the above use cases, plus some located on the ontolog wiki. There's a bit more to the reseed use of ontologies, but this email is already long enough and I think it gives a pretty good impression of a use case.
Best,
Ali
--
Founding Director, www.reseed.ca
Social Technologies Adviser, www.pinkarmy.org
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies
-- Kojeware Corporation
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (01)
|