|
Ok, thanks for your comments, Chris. I'll change the SCL
point, and take your "lattice of theories" point under consideration, expecting
some additional comment by the convenors on that.
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
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
|