John,
I respect your goal, and that you believe in building blocks. I
would suspect and agree that's where there would be some interesting
research. But I don't think that's the right goal for this whole
group, or for a community that wants simply to use an ontology for a
particular practical application, so I can't agree to those parts of
the proposed communique.
I'd be very interested to hear about your results with SUMO and
MILO. Please make sure you have the latest from ontologyportal.org
and not the old versions at Teknowledge. I'd also be interested to
hear about how you view its current modularity as explicitly
described in the comment header to SUMO. (01)
Adam (02)
At 02:47 PM 3/14/2006, John A. Bateman wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>>Well, that may be someone's goal, but it's not mine. In fact, the
>>characterization of "monolithic" ontologies seems to me just
>>pejorative since SUMO, Cyc and DOLCE all have their different
>>approaches to modularity. I don't think we need building blocks, but
>>rather an integrated and common standard. Building blocks require
>>further assembly :-)
>
>and we are finding, with respect to DOLCE, that it is
>precisely in the re-assembly that interesting results
>come out. So, getting at those approaches to modularity
>is what we would put at our top priority in Bremen at
>present, because only then can we do precisely the
>deep (hard) mappings that you were suggested could
>not be done. Doing this for Cyc, looking at the ist
>relation, and for SUMO, would I am convinced give
>interesting and useful results. *Interpreting*
>these modular ontologies as monolithic is the
>problem, not that they are or are not monolithic.
>
>I also don't think that an integrated standard without
>building blocks is the best way to go.
>
>Btw: did you catch that in my talk today that
>we just converted all of SUMO+MILO (not sure why
>we did all the MILO's too, guess we got
>carried away) to CASL so that we can try pursuing
>deep (hard) comparisons with our tools: first problem, making
>the modularity explicit... It would be great
>if you would find something interesting in there
>too.
>
>Best,
>John.
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (03)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|