All,
I concur totally with Leo and Jim here. Agreement at a syntactic level
does not guarantee harmonization at the semantic level. I think John
Sowa's paper referenced in an earlier mail on how different semantic
nuances can be given to the same term depending on the context in which
it is used brings home this point very clearly.
In my experience the problem of different connotations for a term becomes
even more pronounced when we have juxtaposed terms, such as
OpenPortal and PortalOpen. Do they mean the same concept or subtly
different concepts? I am attaching a couple of slides where I have tried
to categorize some of the problems I have seen in analyzing knowledge
bases and ontologies written in all different types of languages. This is
certainly not a comprehensive list - but just a sampling of what I see
while analyzing, regardless of what the representation format
is.
I do want to see the group discussing more about how we can discover such
semantic problems and reconcile them for interoperability, whether it is
at the upper level, mid-level or lower-levels of the ontology spectrum.
That, to me, is the hardest part of interoperability.
Thanks!
Mala
At 04:21 AM 11/21/2006, you wrote:
All,
Leo is correct here. Must must distinguish
between the language and the content expressed in that language.
A standard language, used
by different parties, does not produce interoperable content. It
doesn't matter how expressive the language is, the content will still be
unique. Unique content can work fine within a domain, but not
outside the domain.
Jim Schoening
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo
J.
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:43 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions
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
Ontological Issues-to-cuo.ppt
Description: Binary data
Mala Mehrotra
Pragati Synergetic Research Inc. MS 19-46Q, NASA Research Park,
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Voice:
(650)-625-0274(Office)
(408)-861-0939 (Home Office)
(408)-910-4115 (Cell)
Fax: (408)-516-9599
URL: http://www.pragati-inc.com
Email: mm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|