Leo,
Yes, I understand that's what many people
agreed to. I'm still wondering however
why. Clearly, Mills does not advocate upper
ontologies, or formal ontologies, and I would
think that would make it difficult to advocate the business value of the same. (01)
Adam (02)
At 10:45 AM 3/11/2006, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I think our discussion on the telecon yesterday settled on Mills to
>introduce ontologies and the business value, and Doug Lenat to
>introduce upper ontologies at the Wed pm session, with a joint
>discussion about these talks to take place between Mills and Doug and
>anyone else who is interested in the 5-6 pm slot on Tues.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>
>_____________________________________________
>Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
>lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
>Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
>Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:32 PM
>To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
>Subject: RE: [uos-convene] UOS Agenda and Logistical Details
>
>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
> _________________________________________________________________
>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)
|