Hi Mike.. (01)
I believe I had in mind the "ULO ---> lower cost integration"
wording that was going around. (02)
The converse would be something like "if you paid too much to get
your integration, then you didn't use an ULO". You're right - that
could be shown to be false as counterexamples are easily generated. (03)
On Mar 1, 2006, at 01:53 , Uschold, Michael F wrote: (04)
> I think we are partly talking across purposes. I mostly agree with
> what Bill says here.
> To some extent, my last message was mainly semantic quibbling, and
> perhaps not that useful.
>
> The issue of import is whether we can agree on some variation of:
>
> "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."
>
> My original comment was: 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.
>
> 1. Bills remarks in this email argue that using ULOs is has very
> important benefits, and increasingly such benefits are being backed
> up with evaluation studies. I agree. However, the converse does not
> necessarily hold: "there is no possible way to achieve these
> benefits w/o a UO". That is what in means to say a UO is
> essential or indispensable. That is much harder to argue/prove and
> is what I object to.
>
> 2. The wording above "this common upper ontology" strongly suggests
> that there is ONE TRUE UO. I object to this, we all agree that one
> happen. The weakest (but still useful) notion of a common UO is
> that at least two applications use the same UO. Benefits emerge
> immediately. All is goodness. This group is really try to increase
> the degree to which applications can share common UOs. The
> theoretical limit, to have ONE TRUE UO, will never be reached.
>
> I suggest the following as something we can all endorse, though you
> may wish to endorse a stronger statement, and the wording is not
> very concise.
>
> ======================================================================
> ==========================
> "The use of a common upper ontology is an increasingly important
> and promising approach for achieving affordable and scalable
> semantic interoperability among semantically heterogeneous
> applications. Heterogeneity arises because different applications
> use different ontologies. Semantic interoperability requires that
> these ontologies are mapped or integrated somehow. This process is
> expensive and current methods do not scale. Agreeing on a common
> set of core upper level concepts dramatically simplifies the
> process of integrating or mapping the different domain ontologies
> used by different applications.
>
> We recognize that there will never be a single Common Upper
> Ontology used by all applications. However, neither should there be
> a different UO for every group, or division or organization. The
> goal is to have the maximize what is in common, and where there are
> important differences, that they are well documented so that users
> know which of the available standards best suit their purposes.
>
> The (or one) main goal of this summit is to identify viable
> approaches for establishing a set of interelated standard upper
> ontologies.
> ======================================================================
> ==========================
>
>
> Oh, and by the way, the big elephant in the room is the fact that:
>
> It is the rarest of exceptions these days, that an application even
> HAS an ontology, but hey, for the sake of this summit, shall we all
> pretend that they do?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Andersen [mailto:andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:47 PM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> See below.
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 18:31 , Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not certain that "less controversial" is something we ought to
> be shooting for. The very position that ULO brings something
> qualitatively different to building and successfully employing
> ontologies is what's being assumed in this forum by its
> participants. I don't know about the other "public" participants,
> but we at Ontology Works have had much success applying our ULO and
> Barry Smith documents similar success:
>
> Jonathan Simon, James Matthew Fielding and Barry Smith, "Using
> Philosophy to Improve the Coherence and Interoperability of
> Applications Ontologies: A Field Report on the Collaboration of
> IFOMIS and L&C", in Gregor Büchel, Bertin Klein and Thomas Roth-
> Berghofer (eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Philosophy
> and Informatics. Deutsches Forschungszentrum für künstliche
> Intelligenz,
> Cologne: 2004, 65-72.
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/FOBKSI.pdf
>
> The point here is that the ROI from using ULO for both domain
> ontology construction and for integration is higher than similar
> attempts undertaken without ULO. Thus, I don't think Barry's
> wording is too strong at all. I would dare say that the onus is on
> those who advocate some other path to show that ULO does not have
> these differential ROI benefits. To do that, they would have to
> say how they, without ULO, would have reproduced all the same
> results - and at less cost. Such trade studies are sadly lacking.
>
> .bill
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|