Dear Pat, (01)
The fact is that people are integrating applications every day of the
week without an upper ontology (indeed without ever having heard of
such a thing). Therefore a common upper ontology is clearly not
essential. They do manage to do it. (02)
Now, one or a few integrated upper ontologies used appropraiately
has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of integrating
applications for all the reasons you give. So whether you use the
word "helpful" or put it in a financial context I don't mind, but
I would rather make a statement that is incontrovertible than one
that is contentious. (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cassidy,
> Patrick J.
> Sent: 28 February 2006 14:04
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>
>
> Q: is a common upper ontology essential for semantic interoperability?
>
> Mike Uschold thinks not, and Matthew West agrees:
>
> [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.
> >
>
> "If everyone uses the same ontology" the problem indeed goes away.
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> ===========================
>
> So, back to the starting question:
>
> Q: is a common upper ontology essential for semantic interoperability?
>
> 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".
>
> "helpful"????? Anything can be helpful. I don't think that using
> that wimpy word in place of "essential" will be helpful.
>
> Pat
>
> 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
>
>
> -----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.
>
> I agree with Mike.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|