Yes, I thought this was much better too. (01)
Matthew (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: 07 March 2006 04:10
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Essential or Not
>
>
> This is excellent input Pat. I largely agree. I hope these
> good bits are being collected by someone... And not getting
> lost in the heap...
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cassidy, Patrick J. [mailto:pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:26 PM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Essential or Not
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.Grun
> ingerMich
> 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.
>
> Why settle for less?
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> Pat
>
> 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
>
>
> -----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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> See:
> http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/dagstuhl/P4391.html
>
> 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.
>
> Everything is still too immature.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----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
>
> All,
>
> If a CUO isn't essential for semantic interoperability,
> can anyone explain how it can be done without it?
>
> But first some clarification:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 2. One possible answer is to interrelate multiple UOs, which
> we will explore.
>
> 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.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
> -----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.
>
> 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.
>
> M.
>
> -----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.
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> You say:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell
> International Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London
> SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----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
>
> > 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
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|