Hi Jim (01)
I would like to endorse your distinction between
SI and CUO. During the last year a number of us
in an project called IKRIS
(http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/ikris.htm ) have been
working on an approach to achieving
interoperability by establishing
content-preserving mapping techniques between
various existing ontology engines which use a
variety of notations and logics, and are based on
a variety of different ontological assumptions.
One result of this has been a new (ish) Krep
language, IKL, based on ISO Common Logic which
has been deliberately designed to facilitate the
definition of a variety of such mappings, in part
by having a very flexible syntax and in part by
using a variety of systematic naming conventions.
I am optimistic that IKL is uniquely well suited
to be a common notational framework for
interoperability efforts, and would welcome the
opportunity to work with others towards testing
it out in a wider variety of settings. I am
confident that almost any extant ontology or
knowledge-representation formalism can be
translated into IKL. (02)
For an introduction/tutorial to IKL and the
philosophy behind it, there is an authors draft
of a 'guide' document available at (03)
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.html (04)
One of the interesting 'results' of this effort,
for me, is the fact that a number of
traditionally intractable points of disagreement
between rival ontological-technical views on
things like the proper role of contexts, how to
describe processes, events and change, etc., all
seem to become relatively minor syntactic
variations when appropriately mapped into IKL,
and one can simply write axioms that connect one
style of usage to the other. Rather then
'resolve' these debates by declaring a single
'standard' winner, therefore, this suggests that
we can allow people to use whatever framework
they find more congenial, and still be able to
communicate with other users using different
frameworks via 'interoperation theories'
expressed in IKL. (05)
(BTW, for ontogeeks: the chief way that IKL
extends common logic is by providing names for
propositions, and the chief technical achievement
was to do this consistently in an untyped
language.) (06)
Pat Hayes (07)
>Greetings CUO-WG Subscribers,
>
> The Honorable John G. Grimes, Assistant
>Secretary of Defense (Networks & Information
>Integration) and DoD CIO, stated in a keynote
>speech in Aug 2006, "We are making progress with
>Communities of Interest, but we must now work on
>interoperability between them..." [Not exact
>wording]
>
> I propose we change the name (and focus)
>of this group to "Cross-Domain Semantic
>Interoperability WG (CDSI-WG)," for the
>following reasons:
>
> a. CDSI-WG expresses the
>'objective,' as opposed to Common Upper Ontology
>WG, which expresses one technical solution. It
>will be easier to build understanding and
>support for the objective, after which we can
>present the candidate technologies.
>
> b. There could be alternatives
>to the Common Upper Ontology approach, which we
>should explore and support. For example, the
>Upper Ontology Summit in March 2005 (see
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
>
>) proposed a solution consisting of a 'small set
>of mapped upper ontologies.'
>
> If we agree on this new focus, I propose the following thrusts:
>
> a. Build participation
> b. Develop list of candidate solutions
> c. Review enabling technologies
>and Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each
>candidate solution
> d. Identify work efforts that
>will mature the TRL of each candidate solution
> e. Package findings into
>briefing charts that members can use to build
>understanding and support
> f. Encourage self-organizing
>independent teams to propose and manage projects
>
> Let's first discuss this within the this
>subgroup, and then recruit additional
>particication from SICOP and other forums.
>
>
> Our current web site is at
><http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommonUpperOntologyWG>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommonUpperOntologyWG.
>
>James R. Schoening
>US Army C-E LCMC CIO/G6 Office
>Voice: DSN 992-5812 or (732) 532-5812
>Fax: DSN 992-7551 or (732) 532-7551
>Email: James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
>To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
>Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (08)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (010)
|