Nicola,
I'm not sure how the DOLCE axiom could be inaccurate. I just
copied it from a DOLCE paper. Maybe it's just from an older
version. But of course, that's not really the point. The point is
that it's hard to merge formal ontologies. That you can't understand
one SUMO relation from one example axiom (among many) that uses it is
part of the point. You would have to look at all the axioms that
involve the term to appreciate its meaning, and then try to align
that with all of DOLCE's relevant axioms. That's hard, to say the least.
Whether we call them axioms or definitions doesn't matter. If
there are rules or other statements that use the terms, and they
aren't shared by both models, they would need to be reconciled.
SUMO's subProcess is not a primitive. It is defined as is every
other term in SUMO. See
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=en&term=subProcess> (01)
Adam (02)
At 02:49 PM 3/8/2006, Nicola Guarino wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
> I am very confused by your example.
>
>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.
>
>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).
>
>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.
>
>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.]
>
>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...
>
>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.
>
>Best,
>
>Nicola
>
>
>On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----
>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
>
>phone: +39 0461 828486
>secretary: +39 0461 436641
>fax: +39 0461 435344
>email: guarino@xxxxxxxxxx
>web site: http://www.loa-cnr.it
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|