On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: Folks, I took a pass at listing potential topics for the Tues Mar 14 event. I borrowed suggestions from Barry, Peter, and many others in formulating this. These might be topics for the custodians and others to consider for their talks and our discussions on Tuesday. ...
Nice job here, Leo. Upper Ontology Summit Issues: Opportunities and Challenges March 14, 2006 I. Points of Agreement: 1) We desire semantic interoperability. 2) We agree that a mere taxonomy is insufficient for that. 3) We agree that axioms are an indispensable part of creating semantic interoperability. II. Opportunities and Challenges: 1) Modularity: How to Achieve? Incompatibilities? a. Lattice/poset of theories?
It strikes me that it might be best to play down the idea of a lattice of theories/ontologies. The idea — induced simply by the fact that, for any two theories, one is a subset of the other or not (in which case the theories are not on a common branch of the lattice) — is meant only as a helpful image (I think John himself agrees), not as anything implementable (not that Leo is suggesting otherwise). Indeed, I'm not even sure it's all that helpful, as the subset relation is too coarse a notion of subsumption anyway: the really important subsumption relation between ontologies is relative interpretability, i.e., whether one ontology O1 can be mapped into another O2 in such a way that the content of O1 is preserved in (perhaps a conservative extension of) O2, albeit in the terminology of O2. So it strikes me that it might be best to play down the lattice of theories, both because it is arguably too coarse and also because too many folks seize upon the image and think it buys something practical.
b. 3-D vs. 4-D vs. 3-D/4-D c. Other? 2) Mapping among the terms/axioms of the relevant upper ontologies a. Term to term maps b. Bridging axioms c. Finding consistent common interpretation subsets d. Create a reference library of upper ontologies e. Express in a common language: SCL, IKL?
SCL doesn't exist anymore; it was a detour on the way back to full CL. Also, instead of "CL", the above here should probably be, e.g., "CLIF, or some other CL dialect", as, strictly speaking, CL itself specifies a class of conformant languages ("dialects", in CL-speak), not any single one.
-chris
|
|