On Mar 11, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Bill Andersen wrote: (01)
> C'mon, Leo! You're spoiling my fun! And why do all of this work
> if it isn't fun? :-D
>
> 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)
Well, in order to assure that this test actually works, we need to
demonstrate
that a realistic application system that relies on an ontology beats
a system
that addresses the same application but does not use an ontology. (03)
And this, in turn, highlights the need of including a means of
automatically creating
ontologically supported assertion bases, carry out reasoning using
them and
then outputting results in a form that can be readily evaluated in
comparison
with non-ontological applications. (04)
This is a lot of work, though I would be very happy to take a part in
such a test,
especially if the task involves analyzing and generating text (my
colleagues and I
have been building NLP applications based on ontology-supported
text analysis and generation for many years.) (05)
Sergei (06)
> On Mar 11, 2006, at 17:55 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> 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 (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)
|