[Dagobert Soergel wrote:] (01)
> In preparation for mapping one could dissect an ontology into ever
> smaller pieces, possibly down to individual axioms. Each piece would
> have to be packaged with the minimal context needed for its proper
> interpretation, where context would include basic assumptions, scope
> (pragmatic assumptions, as pointed out particularly by Doug Lenat),
> axioms or other ontology elements on which the given element depends,
> and perhaps more. These contexts could in turn be arranged in
> modular packages for ease of specification. (02)
absolutely. This is what we are currently trying with respect
to DOLCE and would like to see this work extended to other
ontologies. The task of 'dissecting' is itself proving to
be a very valuable exercise, since it forces connections
to be made explicit that otherwise might not be. Thus there
is a lot of interesting work between the ontology-as-a-whole
and the individual axioms. Subtheories of ontologies seems
to be a very profitable grainsize for serious (i.e.,
semantic) mappings (i.e., theory morphisms). (03)
See the examples jumped over briefly in my talk earlier
today at the UOS on such modular specifications. Increasing
that modularity still further would be very valuable
and something we'd like to support. (04)
Best,
John B.
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|