Terminology:
"a common upper ontology" is an upper ontology that is used in
common by two or more ontology-using programs. (01)
There may be more than one common upper ontology - but if two semantic
systems with different domain ontologies want to interoperate
accurately, they have to use one UO in common, which is **their**
common upper ontology. (02)
There doesn't have to be just one, but to gain the maximum benefits of
a common upper ontology there has to be at least one that has enough
users to encourage academic and commercial developers to create
utilities that make the ontology easier to use - or to integrate with
other applications; and to encourage users to develop open applications
so that all can learn how to use such ontologies effectively. (03)
In practice there may be a dominant CUO and several less frequently
used ones. If there are several, with a mechanism for accurately
translating the knowledge among them, they may have the same effect as
a single dominant ontology. It seems risky to try to predict the exact
configuration of upper ontologies a few years from now. It may turn
out eventually that some specialized communities will develop their
own, simplified CUO that serves their specialized purposes better than
a general CUO. But my feeling is that that level of sophistication
will not be reached until we have a widely used CUO whose properties
are well explored enough to discover what subontologies may prove to be
better for particular purposes. (04)
The problem is that right now we don't have one ontology with enough
users to gain the networking benefits of a common UO. If the
custodians of the existing upper ontologies agree to work toward a
method to interrelate their ontologies, and sufficient funding becomes
available to support the project, we might fairly quickly get a CUO
that can gain widespread use and introduce a large audience to the
potential of the existing upper ontologies. (05)
I do not expect that the existing upper ontology builders will
significantly modify the paradigms within which they chose to work.
But finding relations among those different ontologies, such as a
common subset, may prove to benefit them all. I would also hope
fervently that research on better methods to represent knowledge will
never cease, and do not expect any CUO to foreclose exploration of
alternative possibilities. (06)
Mike's four suggested stages might well serve as an outline of the
process that will succeed. I would only add that the custodians of the
existing upper ontologies may conclude that small modifications of
their own ontologies in the interest of increasing the level of
commonality would create significant benefits with minimal cost. (07)
Pat (08)
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 (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold,
Michael F
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Endorsements (010)
"A common upper ontology is essential for achieving affordable
and scalable semantic interoperability. Summit participants will
explore alternative approaches to developing or establishing this
common
upper ontology." (011)
As it stands, I cannot endorse this statement for two reasons.
1. I don't know that it is 'essential'.
2. I don't believe is possible to have a single CUO. (012)
A lot of people, including me balked at using the term 'essential'
below. The revised statement is weaker than the original one, and it is
borderline acceptable, but still may be too strong. (013)
Also, I don't think you will ever get a 'common upper ontology' any
more
than you will ever get a common enterprise ontology or a common
ontology
on any subject among any sufficiently large and diverse group of
stakeholders. Will this CUO be 3d or 4d? It cannot be both. Or do you
mean by CUO, a broader lattice of UOs? (014)
I have long believed that the best solution for reaching agreement on
ontologies at any level is: (015)
* Agree on everything/anything that you can that is uncontentious [or
contentious only at a superficial level] in terms of the 'things of
interest'. (016)
* If you can also agree on the same terms for the things of interest,
then great. If not, then use different terms and map/record them as
synonyms. (017)
* Agree to disagree on other things, when there are good reasons for
different stakeholders that have different needs (e.g. 3d/4d) (018)
* where possible, map between the diff 'things of interest' so that a
user can to the maximal extent possible, enjoy the experience of a
virtual CEO, even though it is more messy under the bonnet/hood. If a
lattice of theories works for this, then great. (019)
What do others think? (020)
Mike (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
|