Yes, I agree with you here, Pat. (01)
The resulting integration ontology if you will is A + B + their
respective bridging axioms, or perhaps better (I know this begs the
question on what '+' means here):
C: A + bridging axioms to B, B + bridging axioms to A, ... [where ...
is anything else you might have, though what that could be at this
level is unclear] (02)
But those bridging axioms by definition must include stuff from both A
& B. (03)
There may be ultimate stuff at the top that is irreconciable except by
using bridging axioms, but to me, those axioms are the integration
aspect. (04)
Of course my argument is less valid the closer you get to the top,
i.e., that you end up using a common upper ontology. I hate to use the
often bandied about "lattice of theories", but I agree with its typical
notion of modularity, i.e., that there is uber logical structure that
holds among ontologies qua theories. In your example, it's the space
that contains A, B, and their bridging axioms. (05)
My guess is that if you have your A & B ontologies (with or without the
bridging axioms which relate them), they will need to contain much of
the same other stuff, though items such as 'person' (or 'human', to
avoid other side issues) down in potential middle ontologies that A & B
potentially embed or characterize or are linked to, will inherit their
respective 3D/4D characteristics. (06)
I am not worried about global consistency and in fact can tolerate two
domain ontologies that use the same middle/upper to be mutually
inconsistent. But they will only be able to share the consistent
information (or the one's inconsistent info will have to be treated
somehow special when brought into the other). (07)
Thanks,
Leo (08)
_____________________________________________
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 (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:17 PM
To: Obrst, Leo J.
Cc: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions (010)
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C70CEC.EDC7481A"
>
>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? (011)
Well, this really does depend on what you count
as AN ontology, in the singular. So take an
example, which has been giving rise to
ontology-standardization debates for as long as
there have been ontologies to debate. Many
frameworks require a sharp distinction to be made
between continuants and occurrents. Other
frameworks, in contrast, either do not recognize
the distinction at all, or treat it merely as a
convenient classification of physical entities,
perhaps even allowing the categories to overlap
in some cases (eg an eternal flame could be
viewed in either way). These two attitudes to
ontological design are certainly incompatible,
and the formal ontologies that their respective
proponents might design (DOLCE would be an
example of the first) would likely differ in
important ways. Nevertheless, it is possible to
make a single formal ontological framework which
would allow each of these designers to write
ontological content in their own preferred way,
and still be mutually consistent and even able to
'converse', in the sense that content written in
one style can be translated into the other style,
both ways round, and this translation can be done
by performing inferences using bridging axioms.
So, we can have two (sub?)ontologies, written
differently, some bridging axioms which use and
relate both vocabularies, and the result of
putting all this together is a single ontology
which encompasses both of the previous ones. This
larger, unified, ontology is not one that would
meet with the philosophical approval of either of
the writers of the original ontologies, but it is
internally consistent. This is an integration
ontology, if you like, but its not obtained by
generalizing upwards - for disagreements like
these, there isn't much further up to retreat to
- but instead by providing cross-links between
different conceptual frameworks. It does not
require commonality of content, only appropriate
negotiations between contents. (012)
It works like this. Ontology A makes the
distinction very sharply, treating it almost as a
well-formedness constraint on the vocabulary. It
is obliged to often distinguish between a
continuant (eg a person) and the occurrent which
represents the temporal progression of changes to
that continuant (the person's lifetime or
lifespan). Ontology B does not distinguish
between these; it talks simply about temporal
entities. The bridging axioms use functions A2B
and B2A to map between the vocabularies. Axioms
include (013)
(forall ((x Acontinuant))(= (A2B x)(A2B (lifespan x)))) (014)
and in the reverse direction (015)
(forall ((x BtemporalThing)(r
AoccurrentProperty)) (if (Acontinuant (B2A
x))(iff (r x)((B2A r)(lifespan (B2A x)) ))) (016)
and so on. (017)
>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
><http://www.mip-site.org>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)
><<mailto:emeasure@xxxxxxxxxxxx>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:
><mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxx
3.net]
>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]
><http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html>www.seman
tic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html
>
>[2]
><http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19>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
><<mailto:James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>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:
><mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxx
3.net
>] On Behalf Of John Flynn
>Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:46 AM
>To: 'common upper ontology working group';
><mailto:bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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:
><mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
>Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:21 AM
>To:
><mailto:bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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/>http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-w
g/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
><http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/
mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
>To Post: mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: <http://colab.cim3.net/>http://colab.cim3.net/
>Shared Files:
><http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/f
ile/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
>Community Wiki:
><http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG>htt
p://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives:
><http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-w
g/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
><http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/
mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
>To Post: mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: <http://colab.cim3.net/>http://colab.cim3.net/
>Shared Files:
><http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/f
ile/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
>Community Wiki:
><http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG>htt
p://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/forum/cuo-wg/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
><http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/
mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
>To Post: mailto:<mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: <http://colab.cim3.net/>http://colab.cim3.net/
>Shared Files:
><http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/>http://colab.cim3.net/f
ile/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
>Community Wiki:
><http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG>htt
p://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 (018)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|