cuo-wg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:43:09 -0500
Message-id: <9F771CF826DE9A42B548A08D90EDEA80016C521D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yes, we are addressing a content standard here, not a useful knowledge representation language for expressing that content. Content is expressed in the KR language, and the language is largely independent (not completely, depending on the expressivity desired in the content; you can't easily shoehorn content that requires e.g. higher order quantification into a description logic).
 
Semantic interoperability requires:
1) representation in a KR language that you can map or translate to/from or a common KR language,
2) but primarily commonality of content, i.e., a common (or set of common) middle/upper ontologies or common reference domain ontology. You can try to create an integration ontology (a generalization of the set of mappings between them) that spans two ontologies and get farther. But you'll find that you are largely creating a common domain ontology, and eventually a common middle, upper ontology. How else can you have commensurability, i.e., comparable or comparative semantics? The alternative is that you pass the mappings all the way across and up to humans every time, i.e., require humans to continually make semantic decisions. Possible but unrealistic.
 
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
 
 


From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:53 PM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

Adrean,
 
    No languages or standard for respresenting knowledge solve the problem of CDSI.   They all enable groups to define data models or ontologies, but these models will not be semantically interoperable. 
 
Jim Schoening 


From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Walker
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:45 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

Hi All --

A quick scan of  www.mip-site.org seems to indicate that  MIP leans towards XML.

So, perhaps RDF would be one of several technologies beyond  XML (but related to it) for CDSI to explore?

                                         Cheers,  -- Adrian

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085


On 11/20/06, Measure, Ed (Civ, ARL/CISD) <emeasure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim et. al.,
 
How does CDSI relate to C2IEDM and the MIP?  Is it intended to incorporated or supercede it?
 
Ed


From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Walker
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:42 AM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

Hi Jim --

Agreed, W3C RDF-OWL are unlikely to solve CDSI without  additional help [1,2].

However, RDF is a pivot data representation, and as such is 2N. 

It has other drawbacks, but not the N**2 one.

Cheers,  -- Adrian

[1]  www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[2]  www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085





On 11/19/06, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John,

        You say: " So, it may be useful to focus on ways to extend the proven WWW model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the CDSI requirements before branching out to seriously consider other less tried and proven approaches."

        I don't see that the W3C or Semantic Web community has a candidate solution for CDSI.  Tim Berners-Lee talks about "let a thousand flowers bloom," but that's the old N**2 problem.   If they have a candidate solution, could someone please explain it to us.

        (I agree all the candidate technical solution are unclear paths, and none may work, but I believe large enterprises should try pursuing all viable candidates.)

Jim Schoening


-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of John Flynn
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'; bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Flynn, John P.'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper


Cory,


A typical problem with government designed and managed architectures is that they have the potential to represent a lowest common denominator (LCD) approach in order to accommodate the interest of all the candidate participants. The resultant LCD architectures are so vague that they still allow many non-interoperable applications to be developed and almost always contain relatively easy to obtain provisions for exceptions. It seems that the one architectural standard that has best held up over a number of years, gracefully evolved and truly supported broad interoperability is the World Wide Web architecture. It was not designed or managed by the government. Also, it is not proprietary. So, it may be useful to focus on ways to extend the proven WWW model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the CDSI requirements before branching out to seriously consider other less tried and proven approaches.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:21 AM
To: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper

Brad,
We have been thinking along similar lines but I submit the government has to own their architectures, only they have the cross-cutting view (or should have).  Contractors can help build these, but the architecture asset (as the _expression_ of the enterprise, enterprise needs and solutions - business or
technical) has to be put into the acquisition cycle.   Systems then need to
be built to that architecture is an executable, testable way.  Those architectures have to STOP being "for a system" and be "for the enterprise". SOA makes a great model for these architectures - separating concerns and providing the boundaries to build to.  The semantic technologies can help here to join and bridge architectures, but you are absolutely correct that the core problem is not technical. -Cory




_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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



 _________________________________________________________________
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




 _________________________________________________________________
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>