|
To the extent that 'Indispensable' is a semantic
dead-ringer for 'essential', this suggestion amounts to changing 'essential'
to 'increasingly essential'.
Also, indispensable and essential are pretty black and
white concepts, Either it is or it is not.
It is not clear what 'increasingly essential's means.
Nearer to a state of being essential, crossing that b/w
divide?
The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with the other
wording, by I forget who.
Something like "essential for affordable and ... semantic
interoperability"
This is less controversial.
Mike
Instead of 'helpful' or 'essential' how about 'will
become increasingly indispensable' (very clear evidence for this already in
biomedicine, if evidence were needed)
BS
At 09:04 AM 2/28/2006,
Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
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
|