|
Dear
Colleagues,
Longer
ago than I care to remember I developed a map of a number of different data
models developed in different parts of Shell, trying to show where they were
similar and where they differed. I attach a pdf of the slide that captured this
"map" and commend the approach of a simple matrix like this to give a high
level map of where the different ontologies are similar or
differ.
Regards
Matthew
This is a composite of
two messages I sent earlier and some thoughts that transpired in the
uos-convene phone conference on March 2.
Purpose: To create a map
of the upper ontology landscape at several levels:
- Broad descriptions of each upper ontology, indicating special domains
(such as time) included / excluded, level of detail, level of formalization,
and philosophical basis / rationale.
- Broad comparison, arranged in at least two ways: pair-wise comparisons
of the ontologies and an outline of issues / constructs with an overview how
each is treated in the different ontologies
- Detailed mapping that compares at the entity and relationship
level. Again, this could be done pair-wise, giving for each entity and
relationship of ontology A the closest corresponding entity or relationship
from ontology B, explaining agreement and disagreement as appropriate.
And this should be represented in the alternative organization of taking
each entity and each relationship, such as partOf, and racing its treatment
in all covered ontologies, pointing out agreements and disagreements.
This map could be used to find a common subset, to select an upper
ontology for a given purpose, and for creating a "mix and match" upper
ontology by taking pieces from several upper ontologies, providing these
pieces fit together (which should be decidable based on the map). (This
is the idea of metadata profiles in XML applied to upper ontologies or
ontologies in general.)
A general method to arrive at such a map is as
follows:
1 Collect
suggested upper ontologies - this is done by inviting the "custodians".
Might include ontologies that deal not with all things but with often-used
aspects, such as an ontology of time concepts or space or general process
description.
2 Compare
and determine
differences
2.1
In elements (presence
/ absence and, more difficult,
definition)
2.2
in
relationships
3 Try
to resolve differences, creating a superstructure that
incorporates
the
non-contradictory parts of various
schemes
3.1
By adding
elements
3.2
By adding
relationships
4 Articulate
the remaining differences so that they are clearly understood.
Some
issues that arise in such an effort are listed below (there are surely
more). These issues should be discussed at the Tuesday meeting with the
objective of either finding a tentative solution or outlining a way for
finding a solution. Put differently, the meeting should start to hammer
out a statement on the difficulties of making these ontologies interoperable
and the methods by which they can be made more interoperable. This would
include the determination of
- areas where there is no or little overlap with one ontology with any of
the others,
- areas where there may be agreement that one of the ontologies is
strongest,
- areas where the custodians may be willing to adapt,
- areas where people have strongly held different positions
Then
issues of process
- How does one go about resolving differences?
- Can one agree on a common formal language (or on a common language for
more informal description) to describe the differences that cannot be
resolved so at least users of the ontologies know what the differences are?
- What are next steps? Can two of the custodians start a pilot
project of reconciling some parts of their ontologies?
- How much effort is involved?
There may be more points to be
considered. Perhaps we could get some statements on these points before
the meeting.
Dagobert Soergel
College of Information Studies
University
of Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD 20742-4345
Office:
301-405-2037 Home:
703-823-2840 Mobile:
703-585-2840
OFax:
301-314-9145 HFax: 703-823-6427
dsoergel@xxxxxxx www.dsoergel.com
Data Model Map.pdf
Description: Data Model Map.pdf
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|