uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [uos-convene] The value of ULO

To: "Upper Ontology Summit convention" <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:55:58 -0500
Message-id: <9F771CF826DE9A42B548A08D90EDEA80D8578C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill,    (01)

We are ALL on your side, because we have all gone through this so many
times. We all firmly believe in the value and ultimate necessity of
Upper Ontologies -- because we have fought our way to this conclusion
the hard way. We just need to impress this experience on others who
have not yet undergone the baptism by fire. Teach them, not exorcise
them.    (02)

Leo     (03)

ps. So does this mean that relational databases don't already provide
everything that we need? ;)
_____________________________________________ 
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     (04)


-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill
Andersen
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:36 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: [uos-convene] The value of ULO    (05)

Just a quick comment on Mills' comment:    (06)

Before continuing, let me first say that I am happy that Mills is an  
advocate for ontologies in general.  Ok...  but...    (07)

> 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.    (08)

I am having a very hard time understanding this comment.  Short of  
HAL-9000, just what technology might that be that will subsume UO or  
"obviate UO arguments"?    (09)

One of the things that has been systematically overlooked in these  
discussions is that almost all of the ULOs under discussion here are  
at least in part philosophically motivated.  This includes at least  
SUMO, Cyc, DOLCE, and Matt West's 4D ontology and to a lesser extent  
PSL.  They are so because the philosophers have been at this business  
for 2500 years, long before the advent of the W3C.  The tools of  
mathematical logic and later computational logic were what were  
needed to make this 2500 years of work effective.    (010)

As for efficacy, I have been arguing the need for this since my first  
posts to this mailing list.  One comment that I have made more than a  
couple times in different guises is that the value of ULO lies NOT  
ONLY in semantic interoperability but has engineering advantages as  
well for building individual ontologies.  Our experience at OW has  
been that we build better ontologies much faster (and thus at less  
cost) than those who take a tabula rasa approach, no matter what  
formalism they work in.  That we have done this, you'll just have to  
take my word as the work was either classified or FOUO.    (011)

The good news is you don't have to take my word for it.  I suggest we  
set up an experiment by which teams of comparable expertise in their  
chosen formalisms, given the same domain description and a fixed  
amount of time, one using a ULO and one prohibited from doing so,  
build a domain ontology to meet the description.  Then, given the  
same data sets, both are subject to a bank of blind competence  
questions based solely on the domain description by parties  
unfamiliar with the logical formalisms employed.  We repeat the  
experiment several times on different domains.  As an added bonus, we  
then take the resulting domain ontologies and, using them as starting  
points, ask each team (ULO, and non-ULO) to *extend* them to a  
different, but related domain.  Then more competency questions.    (012)

I know on which team I'll place my bet.  Any takers?    (013)

        .bill    (014)

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    (015)


 _________________________________________________________________
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    (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>