Dear Mike, (01)
See below. (02)
Matthew (03)
> -----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] A Common Upper Ontology?
>
>
> See Inline comments: MU>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 [mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:43 AM
> To: uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [uos-convene] A Common Upper Ontology?
>
> Dear Ray,
>
> I hesitate to edit without some agreement a document that is
> intended to
> be a joint agreement. So I will present those things that I disagree
> with for discusion.
>
> First from the Background.
>
> "A new initiative is needed to find agreement on a set of
> basic concepts
> that can be easily understood and exploited by diverse communities of
> users to permit their systems to accurately exchange detailed meanings
> for the concepts they need to communicate with each other."
>
> I think there is a chance to find some mid level things that could be
> imported into different upper ontologies (changing the precise meaning
> in the process - eg. 3D cars vs 4D cars).
> However, I don't think there is ONE set of basic concepts that can be
> shared by diverse UPPER ontologies (top few hundred objects).
>
> If some or all of the 3D ontologies wanted to, I could see
> them agreeing
> some common upper level concepts, or in some cases even merging. If
> particular ontology ambassadors are in a position to agree to working
> with specific other ontologies to this end, then I think that
> would make
> a good news story.
>
> I propose this paragraph is deleted. If others agreed, something
> reflecting the more limited ambitions I identify above might replace
> this.
>
> MU> I heartily disagree. I think this is a good paragraph. In
> fact, I'm
> confused Matthew as to what exactly you disagree with. You
> are not clear
> about that. Your comment don't suggest obvious conflict.
> -- (04)
MW: I don't think there is a set of basic concepts that can be agreed
to by all the convened upper ontologies. In particular the discussions
we have had around Pat's strawman have lead me to conclude that what
is really common to 3D and 4D ontologies at the upper level is very
small unless you are going to impose on one or other community something
unpalatable to them. I would not consider that to be a useful outcome. (05)
MW: There is a clear conflict between 3D physical objects that pass through
time and have no temporal parts, and 4D physical objects that are extended
in time and have temporal parts, and the knock on effects from this means
that what can really be shared at the upper level is minimal (as far as I
can see thing, and some very vague idea of a collection with instances). (06)
MW: So at the upper level, the best I can see as conceivable is a common
3D upper ontology, a common 4D upper ontology and a mapping between them.
At a next level down where we start to look at the general sorts of things
that exist (cars, pumps, animals,...) I see again the possibility to "share"
but only in the sense that a 3D/4D interpretaion of physical object is
absent.
>
> Following on from that in the Conclusions in Brief
>
> "(2) Each of the existing upper ontologies differs in specifics of
> implementation, but we all agree that use of some formally defined
> common upper ontology is the most cost-effective method for achieving
> scalable semantic interoperability."
>
> Delete "common"
>
> MU> I heartily agree again. If we delete 'common', then there
> is no need
> for a UO summit. We can use any old UO of which there will be 100s. (07)
MW: This has I think been satisfactorily dealt with elsewhere and there
is a revised version that includes common but deals with my concerns.
>
>
> "(5) As one means of interrelating the existing upper ontologies, we
> plan to explore the possibility of creating a common subset ontology
> that will be accurately translatable into each of the linked upper
> ontologies.
> In addition to making the existing upper ontologies more easily
> accessible, this can provide a simple but powerful tool to allow users
> to explore creation of interoperable systems with basic reasoning
> capability on a pilot scale."
>
> I think this is fine, as it is not too specific and would allow the
> kinds of outcomes I have suggested as realistic above.
>
> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|