> [NG]I am not sure what the most recent contribution to
> this thread is (01)
[ppy] It may be helpful to check out the message archives, where
you can actually get a threaded monthly index of the
conversations, like: (02)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//uos-convene/2006-02/threads.html
or
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/2006-03/threads.html
(there's a index-by-date too!) (03)
... if we all comply with Nicola's request to use proper
subject line, and thread (by using 'reply' when responding) to
relevant message thread ... this could help us wade through the
discussion a bit easier. (04)
By the way, messages are archived every 15 minutes ... be aware. (05)
Cheers. =ppy
-- (06)
--- Begin Message ---
I am not sure what the most recent contribution to this thread is,
anyway I try to clarify my position. Basically, I agree with Mike. (01)
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:53 AM, Uschold, Michael F wrote: (02)
> 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. (03)
I agree, although, if it's pretty clear that an ULO is not essential
for semantic interoperability, it *seems* indeed essential for
*affordable and scalable* semantic interoperability. The latter is
hard to prove, however. (04)
>
> 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. (05)
I AGREE VERY MUCH. The most interesting aspect of this meeting, in my
opinion, is the decision to aim first of all at establishing (formal)
relationships among different ULO. Maybe some of the present ULOs
will possibly agree on some shared ULO, reducing in this way the
present number of ULOs. But the important thing is the vision of a
*library* of ULO. The DOLCE ontology has been developed with this
vision in mind, indeed, and a lot of effort has been put in
establishing formal links and comparisons with other approaches. (06)
>
> 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. (07)
I agree. (08)
>
> 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. (09)
I AGREE VERY MUCH (010)
> ======================================================================
> ==========================
>
>
> 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?
> (011)
Either implicit or explicit, every application has it's own
"conceptualization" of a domain of interest. Surely, only in few
cases these conceptualizations are made explicit. (012)
Cheers, (013)
Nicola (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
--- End Message ---
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|