C'mon, Leo! You're spoiling my fun! And why do all of this work if
it isn't fun? :-D (01)
Actually, I am serious about that test I mentioned. If some entity
like DARPA or ARDA is looking for something worthwhile to do, I would
consider a test such as this worthy of funding. (02)
On Mar 11, 2006, at 17:55 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (03)
> Bill,
>
> 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.
>
> Leo
>
> 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
>
>
> -----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
>
> Just a quick comment on Mills' comment:
>
> Before continuing, let me first say that I am happy that Mills is an
> advocate for ontologies in general. Ok... but...
>
>> 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.
>
> 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"?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I know on which team I'll place my bet. Any takers?
>
> .bill
>
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|