The difficulty in other approaches to Semantic Interoperability that
makes a Common Upper Ontology the best method (IMO by a very large
margin) is that ontologies developed separately just don't have the
information required for accurate mapping. Using a CUO to specify the
meanings of ontology elements in disparate ontologies makes the process
simple and accurate because all of the basic assumptions and all of the
compound concepts used to build up even more complex concepts are
identical. Whatever nuances of fundamental meaning are merged or
omitted in one ontology will be merged or omitted in the other as well,
because the meaning for any ontology element in a specialized ontology
based on a CUO comes from the basic CUO elements of which it is
composed. (01)
Mapping techniques are attractive in the situation where there is no
existing de facto common upper ontology -- so that using some UO as a
reference would seem to be a waste of time, as it provides little
interoperability benefit for the effort expended in using it (it could
provide other benefits). That is the current situation and is the
reason that so much effort is being expended on those mapping tactics. (02)
It is also the problem that we are trying to solve by finding a way to
relate the existing upper ontologies, and thereby develop a de facto
(widely used) CUO. The de facto CUO may emerge as a common subset
ontology or as a set of mappings of ontology elements among the
existing UOs. Such a de facto CUO would optimally provide enough
axiomatization to make the meanings of the elements unambiguous. The
linked UOs could provide additional knowledge that is valuable for
reasoning, and would provide additional value for those whose tasks
could use the additional knowledge. (03)
If you think that mapping, alignment or integration techniques that do
not use a CUO are equal to or preferred, consider the possible future
(inevitable and near, I believe) where there is at least one widely
used CUO with interface utilities (e.g. a controlled English knowledge
entry and query system) that make the CUO as easy to use as Java, and
several open-source applications that perform useful tasks beyond just
searching the knowledge base itself. Would anyone then building an
ontology and anticipating that it would need to communicate with
several other ontologies, build it in isolation and then try mapping?
Would any sane businessman fund such an endeavor? (04)
If there are legacy ontology-based applications, or ontologies built in
isolation for whatever reasons their builders may have, then mapping to
the CUO might well be helped by mapping tools. Thus mapping may have a
role to play even when a widely-used CUO is available. But in the
absence of such a CUO, it is disingenuous to try to assign significance
to the fact that people are trying to map without using a CUO. (05)
An approach to integration using an interlingua is discussed by Michael
Gruninger in the extended abstract of his Dagstuhl paper:
http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/39/pdf/04391.GruningerMich
ael3.Paper.39.pdf
The interlingua serves some of the same functions that a CUO would
serve, though that mapping approach does not demand that the mapped
ontologies be specified using the terms in the interlingua.
As he points out, "automated and correct approaches to semantic
integration will require ontologies with a deeper formal grounding".
The best way to assure that the formal grounding of both ontologies is
adequate is by specifying the meanings of those ontologies using a CUO.
The mapping of domain ontologies to the CUO-interlingua then becomes
relatively simple and highly accurate. (06)
Why settle for less? (07)
A CUO is an engineering artifact. Its value can only be tested by
building it and seeing how well it performs its intended function. The
existing upper ontologies were also built in the hope that they would
gain a large user base. Up to now the complexity of the larger of
these ontologies and the diversity of approaches to UO have made the
use of these ontologies difficult and their utility uncertain to those
who don't have time to explore them in depth. If it proves possible to
find useful relations among the existing CUOs, that should help on both
counts - for complexity, by providing a lower barrier to use of the
existing upper ontologies by developing a subset ontology or a set of
mappings for a subset of compatible ontology elements; for uncertainty,
by providing a public consensus of the most expert developers of UOs
assuring potential users that the effort expended in learning to use
the UOs will not be rapidly made futile by the emergence of some other
standard UO. (08)
There is ample experience now on hand among the UO builders to create
powerful systems that can encode knowledge and permit sophisticated
reasoning with it. Finding relations among the UOs will help to make
that capability more accessible to a wider user base. A consequence we
can anticipate is that there will be a larger number of applications
that can test those ontologies and help increase their level of
"maturity". (09)
Pat (010)
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 (011)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold,
Michael F
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:50 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Essential or Not (012)
There is a lot of work in the semantic interoperability literature that
is agnostic to the use of UOs. It is about mapping between ontologies,
or schema, or query planning using multiple heterogeneous data stores. (013)
I co-led a week long workshop specifically devoted to "Semantic
Interoperability and Integration" in Dagstuhl recently. The topic of
UOs came up from time to time, but was not a major theme. (014)
See:
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/dagstuhl/P4391.html (015)
You might argue that none of the non-UO approaches for semantic
interoperability are affordable and scalable.
I would add that the same is true for all current UO-approaches too. (016)
Everything is still too immature. (017)
Mike (018)
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
[mailto:James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:20 AM
To: 'Upper Ontology Summit convention'
Subject: [uos-convene] Essential or Not (019)
All, (020)
If a CUO isn't essential for semantic interoperability, can
anyone explain how it can be done without it? (021)
But first some clarification: (022)
1. We know it can be done with a person in the loop, with P2P
interfaces, and inside stovepipes, but they are too expensive to scale. (023)
2. One possible answer is to interrelate multiple UOs, which we will
explore. (024)
3. 'Essential' does not mean 'sufficient.' Nobody is saying a CUO in
inself is all you need for semantic interoperability. We know no
single ontology could cover all concepts, so we'd need domain and
sub-domain ontologies. I don't think we know how much semantic
interoperability we'll lose and keep when crossing domains. (025)
Jim Schoening (026)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold,
Michael F
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:56 AM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too. (027)
Here here, err on the side of saying things that are easy to argue or
demonstrate from actual experience. The ROI remarks fit this bill
exactly. (028)
M. (029)
-----Original Message-----
From: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 [mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:14 AM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too. (030)
Dear Bill, (031)
You say: (032)
> 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. (033)
I agree. (034)
I think this is what we really want to say, rather than whether it is
essential or indeispensible. It is a simple economic argument that
ought to be listened to by potential funders. (035)
Regards (036)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell International
Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (037)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (038)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bill
> Andersen
> Sent: 28 February 2006 23:47
> 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 (039)
> 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
>
> (040)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (041)
|