Dear Pat, (01)
ISO 15926 has composition_of_individual which is very general and
is essentially a spatio-temporal part of relation which also allows
scattered parts. We also have a temporal_whole_part relation
(spatial whole, temporal part). (02)
These of course apply to physical objects as well as processes. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cassidy,
> Patrick J.
> Sent: 09 March 2006 08:19
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene]: Relating ontologies
>
>
> UOS-conveners:
>
> I think that the case presented by Adam Pease and the response of
> Nicola Guarino are a very good example of the kind of examination of
> the relations among the upper ontologies that could, when resolved,
> provide either translation axioms or a common subset ontology. This
> case is a good example in part because it treats an important and
> common relation, which should be in any upper ontology, and it also
> elucidates some of the nuances that should be made clear in any upper
> ontology that we would recommend to the public for general use.
>
> If it were possible to get funding for a project to create a common
> subset ontology, this kind of analysis will be needed, and will, I
> think lead at the very minimum to a clear and comprehensive
> documentation describing the meanings of the ontology elements (Types,
> Relations, Axioms) in sufficient detail to eliminate all significant
> ambiguity and permit those elements to be used in the same sense by
> everyone. I think that it also shows that, a useful common
> subset may
> be practical to build, provided that making some minor additions or
> changes to the existing upper ontologies were acceptable to the
> custodians.
>
> In the specific case of SUMO "subProcess" and DOLCE
> "Temporal Part", I
> think Adam is correct that considering only the single axiom he
> presented for SUMO subProcess with the DOLCE axiom that axiomatized
> Temporal Part does not provide enough of a view of the relations
> between these two semantic relations, **but** other axioms in SUMO do
> indicate a very close relation between the two semantic relations in
> the two ontologies. It appears to me that SUMO "subProcess"
> and DOLCE
> "temporal part" are closely related (the latter may be a
> subrelation of
> the former), and that clarifying the relation between them could show
> where useful additions or additional constraining axioms could be
> helpful, in the common subset and possibly also in the parent upper
> ontologies. I think that Adam is also correct in believing that
> finding the precise relations will be a non-trivial exercise for many
> such cases. But I think that the exercise will be worthwhile.
>
> I will present some analysis on this specific issue in an
> attached file
> to illustrate the point, and will also refer to the related OpenCyc
> relation in that analysis.
>
> I would conclude from examining this case that the SUMO "subProcess"
> and DOLCE "Temporal Part" (PT or P.T) are different mostly in that a
> "subProcess" could include a spatial part, which is a
> separate relation
> in DOLCE. So the DOLCE "Temporal Part" appears to be a specialization
> of the "subProcess" relation. These relations differ in the way the
> additional implications they entail are expressed, but are closely
> enough related that they both could be represented by relations in a
> common subset ontology that could be translated into relations in each
> of the upper ontologies, provided that (1) a more general
> "subPerdurant" relation were added to DOLCE which subsumed both
> "Temporal Part" and "Spatial Part" relations on perdurants, and which
> would be more closely equivalent to "subProcess"; and (2) every
> Perdurant in DOLCE were equivalent to a Process in SUMO.
> Likewise, the
> OpenCyc "subSituations" appears to be identical to "subProcess", but
> that is not specified in axioms, rather it is implied in the OpenCyc
> documentation. Again, to be identical, a Situation in OpenCyc would
> have to be equivalent to a Process in SUMO and a Perdurant in DOLCE.
>
> For that reason, I believe that "subProcess", "subSituation" and
> "Temporal Part" could all be accommodated in a common subset ontology,
> depending on how closely identified SUMO "Process", OpenCyc
> "Situation"
> and DOLCE "Perdurant" are.
>
> It is unclear whether DOLCE accommodates a specialized relation
> specifying spatiotemporal parts of Perdurants. If not, this should be
> added to make a closer match with SUMO, OpenCyc, BFO, and ISO 15926.
>
> I do hope it is possible to get funding for this kind of study.
>
> 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 Adam Pease
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:00 PM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene]: Relating ontologies
>
> 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>
>
> Adam
>
> 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
>
> ----------------------------
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|