Mike, (01)
I think you mean XML for syntactic interoperability, no? (02)
And actually, I think most of these are answerable and very positively: (03)
1) We don't yet have one grand upper ontology?
ANSWER: we don't need one. We have adequate upper ontologies (not
great). AND we understand that it's valuable to map together/identify
an intersection. This is our current undertaking with with UOS.
2) None of the existing upper ontologies are adequate.
ANSWER: probably ALL are adequate (not great).
3) The information technology community (substitute "the ontology
community", "the Semantic Web community", the "commercial and
governmental community", as you see fit or as applies) does not believe
upper ontologies will help in addressing semantic interoperability.
ANSWER: IT community: doesn't know. Commercial community: maybe.
Governmental community: yes!
4) The <same communities as above: pick one> don't believe semantic
interoperability is a problem.
ANSWER: IT community: kind of knows. Commercial community: maybe but
why share? Governmental community: yes!
5) We don't yet know enough about how to map domain ontologies to upper
ontologies (substitute middle to upper ontologies, if you desire).
ANSWER: we do, we clearly do.
6) Others? What are they? (04)
Leo
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold,
Michael F
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:08 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Essential or Not (06)
I think you did a very good job of answering your own question:
"how are UO approaches not affordable and scalable for addressing
semantic interoperability?" (07)
True, there may be point semantic interoperability solutions around
that may have been affordable, and may have scaled to the needs of the
particular case. I was meaning the more grand vision of achieveing
semantic interoperability in the sense of how we solved syntactic
interoperability for the web with .html. I.e. the over all problem is
very hard, and no approach currently us up to the more general task. (08)
What is needed is metrics so we can measure our progress, and have more
useful goals than the very vague one I listed above. (09)
Mike (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: Obrst, Leo J. [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:53 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Essential or Not (011)
Ok, I'll bite: how are UO approaches not affordable and scalable for
addressing semantic interoperability? (012)
I don't believe that "everything is still too immature": what parts of
"everything" are still too immature? I am skeptical about easy
statements. (013)
Here are some prospective aspects for those "immature" parts of
"everything": (014)
1) We don't yet have one grand upper ontology?
2) None of the existing upper ontologies are adequate.
3) The information technology community (substitute "the ontology
community", "the Semantic Web community", the "commercial and
governmental community", as you see fit or as applies) does not believe
upper ontologies will help in addressing semantic interoperability.
4) The <same communities as above: pick one> don't believe semantic
interoperability is a problem.
5) We don't yet know enough about how to map domain ontologies to upper
ontologies (substitute middle to upper ontologies, if you desire).
6) Others? What are they? (015)
Thanks,
Leo (016)
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (017)
-----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 (018)
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. (019)
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. (020)
See:
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/dagstuhl/P4391.html (021)
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. (022)
Everything is still too immature. (023)
Mike (024)
-----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 (025)
All, (026)
If a CUO isn't essential for semantic interoperability, can
anyone explain how it can be done without it? (027)
But first some clarification: (028)
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. (029)
2. One possible answer is to interrelate multiple UOs, which we will
explore. (030)
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. (031)
Jim Schoening (032)
-----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. (033)
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. (034)
M. (035)
-----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. (036)
Dear Bill, (037)
You say: (038)
> 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. (039)
I agree. (040)
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. (041)
Regards (042)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell International
Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (043)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (044)
> -----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 (045)
> 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
>
> (046)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (047)
|