uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uos-convene]: Relating ontologies

To: Upper Ontology Summit convention <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Nicola Guarino <guarino@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:49:32 +0100
Message-id: <0CE5B800-584A-4ABB-ABF2-65DE03419DCD@xxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Adam,    (01)

        I am very confused by your example.    (02)

1. First of all, your transcription of the DOLCE axiom is inaccurate,  
since the "subset" relation you mention in the DOLCE example is  
indeed the temporal inclusion relation, defined in terms of temporal  
locations of perdurants. We have no subset relation in the DOLCE  
vocabulary.    (03)

2. You are comparing a SUMO *axiom* concerning processes with a DOLCE  
*definition* concerning the notion of temporal part. I guess that a  
more interesting comparison could be between the SUMO relation  
"subProcess" (which I understand is taken as primitive, i.e. not  
defined) and the DOLCE relation "TemporalPart" (defined in terms of  
perdurant, part, and the above mentioned temporal inclusion).    (04)

3. I don't know whether "SubProcess" is suitably constrained in SUMO.  
Intuitively, from the name, I understand a subprocess should be some  
how a "part" of a process. Now two questions arise: a) is there a  
formal relationship between SubProcess and Part in SUMO? b) if yes,  
does any part of a process count as a subprocess? The DOLCE  
definition clarifies these two questions, saying that a temporal part  
X of a process Y is a part which is "temporally maximal", in the  
sense that all parts of Y which are temporally included in X are also  
parts of X. So a non-temporally maximal part of a process is not a  
temporal part.    (05)

4. We may conclude that, *IF* SUMO has equivalents of the DOLCE  
notions of parthood and temporal inclusion, then the DOLCE definition  
of temporal part could be used to better clarify the SUMO notion of  
subprocess. In practice, limiting ourselves to this very simple  
example, a suitable alignment with DOLCE may result in a more precise  
ontology, in the sense that some non-intended SUMO models may be  
excluded thanks to the DOLCE axiomatization. [NOTE: I am using the  
term "precise" in a very technical sense - see my work on precision,  
coverage and accuracy as dimensions for comparing and evaluating  
ontologies: "Toward a Formal Evaluation of Ontology Quality." IEEE  
Intelligent Systems 19, no. 4 (2004): 78-79.]    (06)

5. However, I only focused on the SUMO subProcess relation in this  
discussion. Considering the full axiom you reported results in more  
puzzlement, since I cannot grasp its meaning: apparently, it just  
says that every subprocess has a time. Not very informative...    (07)

My conclusion is that a careful comparison between SUMO and DOLCE  
concerning the relationship between the mereological structure of  
processes and their temporal location could actually result in a  
better understanding of these notions. I am sure that such improved  
understanding could be of benefit for SUMO users, as well as for  
DOLCE users willing to to comunicate with SUMO users.    (08)

Best,    (09)

Nicola    (010)


On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Adam Pease wrote:    (011)

> Hi John,
>   The example I used was of SUMO's Process vs. DOLCE's Perdurant.  
> They cover a similar semantic need, but the details of the formal  
> definitions, and then all the connections to other definitions are  
> so complex and intertwined it seems clear to me that the return on  
> investment for merging isn't there.  It's much easier to pick one.   
> Trying to merge formal ontologies seems to me to be harder even  
> than creating a new ontology from scratch.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>                         Mapping (hard)
>
> - SUMO:Process
>
> (=>
>     (and
>         (instance ?PROC Process)
>         (subProcess ?SUBPROC ?PROC))
>     (exists (?TIME)
>         (time ?SUBPROC ?TIME)))
>
> - DOLCE:Perdurant
>
> TemporalPart(x, y) =df perdurant(x) ^ Part(x, y) ^ forall z((Part 
> (z, y) ^ z subset x) -> Part(z, x)
>
> -These are just some of many axioms in each ontology
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Adam
>
> At 10:01 AM 3/8/2006, bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> you mentioned just now in the telecon some overheads that
>> you used yesterday (?) to illustrate irreparable
>> incompatibility between SUMO and DOLCE. Since you were
>> last in Bremen 2-3 years ago we have been working more or less
>> continuously on issues of relating deeply axiomatised
>> ontologies. I would be interested in seeing the
>> examples that you used so that we could consider
>> how we would be going about relating these incompatibilities
>> with our kinds of tools. This might make some of the
>> discussion more concrete when it comes to what may or
>> may not come out of the exercise of relating ontologies
>> and also help relate to the other initiatives and
>> actions in this direction.
>>
>> Could you send a pointer to the overheads?
>> Best,
>> John B.
>>
>>  _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ----------------------------
> Adam Pease
> http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>    (012)




------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----
Nicola Guarino
Co-Editor in Chief, Applied Ontology (IOS Press)
Head, Laboratory for Applied Ontology (LOA), ISTC-CNR
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies
National Research Council
Via Solteri, 38
I-38100 Trento    (013)

phone:     +39 0461 828486
secretary: +39 0461 436641
fax:       +39 0461 435344
email:     guarino@xxxxxxxxxx
web site:  http://www.loa-cnr.it    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>