|
Dear
Leo,
I
think Lattice of Theories should stay, we might change what we mean by that
(maybe library of theories) but I think there is at least some explaining to
do.
Matthew
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
|