Q: is a common upper ontology essential for semantic interoperability? (01)
Mike Uschold thinks not, and Matthew West agrees: (02)
[MU] > This statement is too strong, and I don't agree with it in its
current
> form:
>
> "the use of some formally defined common upper ontology is
> essential for semantic interoperability."
>
[MU] > UOs can be a big help towards solving semantic interoperability,
by
> making part of the problem go away. The whole problem [pretty
> much] goes away if everyone uses the same ontology.
> (03)
"If everyone uses the same ontology" the problem indeed goes away. (04)
So let us focus on the question of what happens when (as we know is
happening and will continue to happen) people develop their own domain
ontologies in different locations, in uncoordinated fashion. Two
alternatives: (05)
Case (1): Two ontologies use the same upper ontology to provide the
basic concepts with which they specify the meanings of their domain
ontology elements (Types, relations). Where new relations are created,
the axiomatizations also use the components from the same upper
ontology. Once an ontology element is specified by use of components
from the upper ontology, it can be itself used as part of an extension
of the upper ontology, and ontology elements specified using such
extensions can also be considered as specified with the upper ontology. (06)
If any two such domain ontologies want to interoperate, they share all
of the newly created domain specifications that are not in the common
upper ontology. They also share all of the data that they intend to
reason with. The result is in fact exactly the same ontology on both
ends. Voila! Interoperability. (07)
Why is this better than just mapping? It can be viewed as a "mapping"
of a sort, using the upper ontology, but by using the upper ontology
for *creation* of the domain ontologies, as well as for the "mapping"
phase, the mappings can be precise, and can be accomplished
automatically. There is some work needed to eliminate and merge
duplicates, e.g. to recognize when the same Type or relation, defined
separately, has a different name; that will be evident from their
specifications. The same instances may appear with different names;
this could also happen in a single ontology - the methods used to
determine the names of instances would need to be shared. Likewise, it
is possible that the same instances have been assigned to different
Types. If the Types are disjoint, that would signal a logical
contradiction which would mean that one or both of the domain
ontologies are erroneous. Using the same upper ontology does not
prevent one from creating nonsense, but it does help a lot to recognize
the problem. (08)
There is also an issue of when a newly-created concept has some
"primitive" character, and should be in the upper ontology rather than
in a mid-level or domain ontology. I can think of some criteria for
making such a decision, but that is not essential to the point at hand. (09)
Case (2): Two ontologies are created using different upper ontologies,
or no upper ontology at all. Now try to relate them. How? There has
been a lot of effort expended in finding ways to automatically map,
merge, align, or integrate ontologies. Much of the work makes sense
and may be useful for limited purposes, but has no hope of creating
accurate and complete maps between independently created ontologies
because the information needed to accurately relate the ontology
elements to each other is in general not present in the individual
ontologies. Even when present, it is only in the comments, not usable
for automated integration. The problem of ambiguity of words used in
disparate databases also applies to terms used to label ontology
concepts, or instances. I find it hard to visualize how a merger of
ontologies developed without a common upper ontology could begin to
approach the accuracy that can be expected from using the same basic
upper ontology elements for creating the domain ontologies. The problem
of recognizing what is intended by a logical specification for a Type
or relation disappears when the same set of basic concepts is used to
create the specification. It is intractable when different basic
notions are used to create the specifications, as there will always be
some unexpressed components of meaning that are left out of the
fundamental ontology elements, and each independently developed
ontology will leave out different components of meaning. (010)
=========================== (011)
So, back to the starting question: (012)
Q: is a common upper ontology essential for semantic interoperability? (013)
If by "semantic interoperability" we mean interoperation between
applications using ontologies developed separately (i.e., not
applications developed using the same domain ontology), I do think that
the answer is "yes". (014)
"helpful"????? Anything can be helpful. I don't think that using
that wimpy word in place of "essential" will be helpful. (015)
Pat (016)
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (017)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West,
Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:43 AM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too. (018)
I agree with Mike. (019)
Regards (020)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (021)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (022)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: 28 February 2006 01:51
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>
>
> This statement is too strong, and I don't agree with it in its
current
> form:
>
> "the use of some formally defined common upper ontology is
> essential for semantic interoperability."
>
> Replace 'essential' with 'helpful', and I'm on board.
>
> UOs can be a big help towards solving semantic interoperability, by
> making part of the problem go away. The whole problem [pretty
> much] goes
> away if everyone uses the same ontology.
>
> We get over lack of a common ontology by mapping between
> them, we can do
> the same thing for UOs, in principle.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
> [mailto:James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:09 PM
> To: 'uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>
> All,
>
> I agree with Steve Ray's statement in the draft communique,
>
> "We all agree the use of some formally defined common upper
> ontology is essential for semantic interoperability."
>
>
> I support exploring this new approach, but let's not dismiss other
> possible approaches, such as:
>
>
> 1. Major Leader Approach:
> a. A large player selects one CUO (after seeking input and
> consensus within an open forum)
> b. Its business partners use it and it spreads gobally
>
> 2. Consortium Leader Approach:
>
> a. A consortium of key players develop or select a CUO.
> b. It spreads globally
>
> 3. Market Momentum Approach
> a. Many players use different CUOs and the market eventually
> moves toward one of them.
>
> 4. Consensus Approach
> Open forum seeks to develop or select a CUO.
>
> My assessment of each:
>
> All approaches need more commercial success of basic system
> ontologies.
>
> #4 IEEE SUO WG (which I chaired) tried this but achieved little
> consensus, due in part to lack of utilization of the candidate upper
> ontologies, lack of pragmatic vendor participation, lack of market
> momentum toward any one candidate, and maybe just because there is no
> one correct upper ontology.
>
> #3 I don't see this happening any time soon. Stand-alone ontologies
> don't need and aren't using upper ontologies.
>
> #2. This could work, but only if the reach agreement and then use the
> CUO.
>
> #1. This could work, but again, only if the major player successfully
> uses the CUO.
>
> And I am anxious to learn more about the approach of this summit.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (024)
|