|
In the attachment I sent in the following paragraph
the final DOLCE relation "Temporal Part" should have been "Spatial
Part":
[PC1] >> One option ("model"?) left open by the SUMO
axiomatization, for example, is that the "subProcess" may be temporally
coincident with the parent Process, and might involve only a portion of the
participants of the parent Process. In a parade, for example, it seems
that the parading of the Drum Majorette (and her twirling and tossing her baton)
would qualify as a subProcess in SUMO (i.e. this is consistent with the axioms)
– but would be temporally coincident and not a "temporal part". In DOLCE
this would be a Temporal Part.
. .
. should have been
[PC2] >> One option ("model"?) left open
by the SUMO axiomatization, for example, is that the "subProcess" may be
temporally coincident with the parent Process, and might involve only a portion
of the participants of the parent Process. In a parade, for example, it
seems that the parading of the Drum Majorette (and her twirling and tossing her
baton) would qualify as a subProcess in SUMO (i.e. this is consistent with the
axioms) – but would be temporally coincident and not a "temporal part". In
DOLCE this would be a Spatial
Part.
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 Cassidy, Patrick J.
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:19
AM
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
|