My answer to such folks would be in the form of some questions: (01)
1) How many ontology-based information systems have you built?
2) How many unforeseen applications did they serve and how well? (02)
There is no need to provide justification to those who don't speak
from either strong theoretical argument or real-world experience. (03)
Kind of like asking Wernher von Braun "What's the deal with all this
rocket stuff anyway?" (04)
On Mar 11, 2006, at 13:32 , Adam Pease wrote: (05)
> Folks,
> Apparently this is a dumb question, since I've asked it before,
> but why do we want someone who doesn't see the value of an upper
> ontology being the person to "introduce" upper ontologies to the
> public at this meeting?
>
> Adam
>
> At 10:27 AM 3/11/2006, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>
>> UOS-conveners:
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-
>> com:office:office" />
>>
>> I think that the comments of Mills Davis (below, sent to Brand
>> Niemann) provide a good example of the work that the upper
>> ontology community has to do in order to explain to the wider
>> world – including most people in the IT field – why upper
>> ontologies are important for achieving broad semantic
>> interoperability among diverse applications.
>>
>>
>>
>> The need for formalized definitions in ontologies has been
>> preached by Doug Lenat and others since before 1990. The basic
>> ideas go back 50 years to the birth of "AI". One might have
>> supposed that by now everyone in IT would understand why computers
>> need precise definitions to do logical inferencing on knowledge.
>> But this understanding is apparently still confined mostly to a
>> small group who work with axiomatized ontologies. Most of us in
>> this group understand the potential benefits of automated
>> reasoning over large knowledge bases, but some who are (properly)
>> concerned with what can be done immediately remain to be
>> convinced, either of the ultimate potential, the time required to
>> get there, or the economic or social feasibility of the goal. It
>> appears to me that those who are convinced of the benefits of
>> upper ontologies need more effort at outreach to a broader
>> audience. The UOS was intended to help in that goal. The result
>> may depend on how much we can achieve on Tuesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mills has been familiar with applications of knowledge
>> representations for years, and yet he still asks:
>>
>> "why have one upper-level ontology when you can have them all? "
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer, of course, is that having more than one upper-level
>> ontology makes accurate and automated semantic interoperability
>> impossible (or in the more cautious words of the joint communiqué
>> draft):
>>
>>
>>
>> " . . . use of some formally defined common upper ontology by an
>> organization or community is the most cost-effective method for
>> achieving semantic interoperability that can scale from a few
>> applications to diverse knowledge-based reasoning systems ".
>>
>>
>>
>> . . . but Mills is apparently not convinced. And I think that he
>> represents a very large fraction of the IT community in this respect.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that we cannot assume that just because someone has been
>> exposed to arguments about the importance of upper ontologies, s/
>> he will have understood the point. Even worse, we cannot assume
>> that someone who has access to, or been pointed to, discussions of
>> the need for upper ontologies has even read such discussions, let
>> alone understood them. The issues are apparently complex enough
>> that they need to be phrased as simply and succinctly as
>> possible, and be accompanied by pointers to examples illustrating
>> how UOs can benefit users. The former might be helped by the
>> Joint Communique, which can be redistributed wherever it may do
>> some good. The examples are an issue we need to discuss on
>> Tuesday and Wednesday morning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another point that has come up in the course of these discussions
>> is that most of those who are building domain ontologies or other
>> knowledge classifications need something simple to work with, if
>> they are going to align such knowledge bases with a more general
>> concept classification. This also impinges on the question of how
>> much agreement can be achieved among the upper ontologists, and
>> whether a "common subset" can be found. These issues were raised
>> by comments of (among others) Barry Smith, David McComb, Mills
>> Davis, John Sowa, and Roy Roebuck.
>>
>>
>>
>> But to serve the purposes of semantic interoperability, I think
>> that most of us would agree that even a "simplified" upper
>> ontology must have sufficient formalization to avoid the common
>> ambiguities associated with linguistic terms. This recalls
>> Einstein's dictum: "A theory should be made as simple as
>> possible, but no simpler. "
>>
>>
>>
>> My own appreciation of these concerns leads me to feel that it
>> would be very helpful to have an axiomatized UO fragment that is
>> simple enough to be rapidly and widely adopted so that it is
>> highly visible, but axiomatized to sufficient precision to avoid
>> the major ambiguities in interpreting the meanings of the terms,
>> and can demonstrate to a wide audience the advantages of a common,
>> formally defined higher-level ontology to enable information
>> transfer among semantic modules. Perhaps a common subset will
>> serve such a purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> The note of Mills Davis is attached directly below.
>>
>>
>>
>> The current situation reminds me of the "muckraker" allegory from
>> "Pilgrims Progress" and I have attached that reference below as
>> well, with a short comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>
>> Note of Mills Davis to Brand Niemann
>>
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>> I talked with Steve, and yes, I'll do 20 minutes with Doug Lenat to
>> set a business context for ontology. Why? Because, at a minimum, it
>> is good that the various ULO custodians are agreeing to work together
>> to cross link and explore samenesses and differences between their
>> approaches. This is the essence of the public statement they will
>> come up with at the end of the second day. I support their desire to
>> work together because I believe that the semantic wave is a big one
>> and that all contributions are welcome and encouraged.
>>
>> If you were to ask me where I think that this ULO activity will come
>> out, then I have the following thoughts:
>>
>> (1) If the ULO quest is to arrive at one upper level ontology, then I
>> think that the result will not be this. Rather, that there will
>> emerge some few, a small set of primitives, that link to low level
>> concepts or instances of interest via a direct binary relationship;
>> then, between these layers of abstraction, any taxonomy or upper
>> level ontology can be interposed, allowing us to choose which is the
>> best for our purposes. Bottom line, why have one upper-level ontology
>> when you can have them all? I suspect that the only reason to be
>> looking for one upper level ontology would be if you believed that
>> relational databases would be for ever and that every item of data
>> must have one and only one tag.
>>
>> (2) Secondly, my interest is in the development of a "scientific
>> method" for testing and evaluating the efficacy and validity of
>> metaphysical patterns (ontology). In an era of knowledge computing,
>> its is of critical importance to be able to validate and ground the
>> ontology specifications in experimental data. Here, I think that the
>> focus should shift from the nouns (concepts) to relationships and the
>> theories that underly these relationships. Nouns require conventions
>> and agreements. Relationships and the theories that underly them are
>> much more limited and scientific.
>>
>> Bottom line: I applaud and encourage the efforts of this UO
>> community. By coming together, I hope they deliver value. At the same
>> time, I'm reserving judgement (or, remaining agnostic regarding the
>> value, pending evidence), and am harboring a supposition that in the
>> next year or so, technology may be emerging that will obviate UO
>> arguments by subsuming all of these disparate approaches and
>> subjecting them to tests of efficacy.
>>
>>
>>
>> ====================================
>>
>> Pat Cassidy: fable for the day.
>>
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>> There will always be a tension between those who are concerned
>> with what is concrete and doable immediately, and those who are
>> concerned about the things that can be done in the near future
>> that represent a qualitative improvement over the immediate. The
>> fable of the "muckraker" from "Pilgrim's Progress" puts that in an
>> allegorical (though religious) form:
>>
>>
>>
>> From Paul Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, stage 2
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> This done, and after those things had been somewhat digested by
>> Christiana and her company, the Interpreter takes them apart
>> again, and has them first into a room where was a man that could
>> look no way but downwards, with a muck-rake in his hand. There
>> stood also one over his head with a celestial crown in his hand,
>> and proffered him that crown for his muck-rake; but the man did
>> neither look up nor regard, but raked to himself the straws, the
>> small sticks, and dust of the floor.
>>
>> Then said Christiana, I persuade myself that I know somewhat the
>> meaning of this; for this is a figure of a man of this world: is
>> it not, good sir?
>>
>> INTER. Thou hast said right, said he; and his muck-rake doth show
>> his carnal mind. And whereas thou seest him rather give heed to
>> rake up straws and sticks, and the dust of the floor, than to do
>> what He says that calls to him from above with the celestial crown
>> in his hand; it is to show, that heaven is but as a fable to some,
>> and that things here are counted the only things substantial. Now,
>> whereas it was also showed thee that the man could look no way but
>> downwards, it is to let thee know that earthly things, when they
>> are with power upon men's minds, quite carry their hearts away
>> from God.
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> [PC] Apparently, a common upper ontology that can enable semantic
>> interoperability "is but as a fable to some". I hope that the
>> UOS meeting can help to provide evidence that the benefits of
>> upper ontologies are more "substantial" than many in the wider
>> world currently believe.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Pat
>>
>
> ----------------------------
> 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)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|