To: | "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | "Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:11:27 -0400 |
Message-id: | <6ACD6742E291AF459206FFF2897764BE0114A4B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I
have no objection to the name change. Since we already have a COSMO-WG, a
forum with less commitment to that specific approach would not conflict or be
redundant.
On
the issue of whether a 'small set of mapped upper
ontologies.' would be an equally functional substitute for one common UO, it
depends on how detailed the mapping is. If all types and relations among
the elements of the set of ontologies were properly related to each other, such
a mapped set would be logically equivalent to the notion of a COSMO that could
contain alternative logically contradictory theories. The COSMO can
accommodate a lattice of theories. One difference would be that in the
vision of the COSMO, for any given logical incompatibility, the COSMO-WG would
choose one as the default. This would provide guidance and increased
semantic compatibility where users had no particular preference --- the likely
situation for the vast number of potential users who have no desire to fiddle
with upper ontology issues..
Calling it a 'set of
mapped ontologies', even if it were logically indistinguishable from the
proposed COSMO, might make some people happy who object to any single
'standard', no matter how flexible and accommodating that standard is -- a
psychological courtesy. The IKRIS project explored the question of
mapping, and in Pat Hayes's report, he suggests from that experience that the
actual logical differences among existing upper ontologies are smaller than
might be supposed from casual inspection. If people are more comfortable
arriving at a common upper ontology by a process called 'mapping' rather than
one called 'merging', then that would be a good thing. The most important
thing is to find some funding for the project, which will take considerable
effort, regardless of whether one views it as "mapping" or
"merging".
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [cuo-wg] DoD report on Progress of its Net-Centric Data Strategy, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [cuo-wg] My Comments on DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [cuo-wg] Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability, Broome, Barbara (Civ, ARL/CISD) |
Next by Thread: | [cuo-wg] DoD report on Progress of its Net-Centric Data Strategy, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |