>Yes, I agree with you here, Pat.
>
>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) (01)
Im taking it to be something very simple, like
textual concatenation or conjoining. So you could
just say & rather than + (02)
>:
>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]
>
>But those bridging axioms by definition must include stuff from both A
>& B. (03)
Not sure what stuff you are referring to. They
must use the conceptual vocabulary from both A
and B (and more), but the actual axioms are
unique to the bridging ontology itself. (04)
>
>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.
>
>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)
Right. Though just to be clear, I was referring
to A and B and so on, but in fact these are
nothing but sets of axioms, logically: there are
no real 'module' boundaries here; and the
bridging axioms relate concepts which occur in
the ontologies, not the ontologies themselves.
(In fact, the only place in the logic that the
ontologies play any role at all is in the
namespace discipline, which is logically
invisible.) Which is why I began by asking you
what you consider to be AN ontology, exactly.
Same (?) question: what do you consider to be a
module? (06)
>
>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. (07)
The problem with things like these philosophical
kind of divergences at the upper-middle level is
that ordinary ideas like 'physical object' or
'human' turn out to have different properties in
the different frameworks. For example, a
DOLCE-style ontology ( or one based on Barry's
snap/span contrast) will distinguish 'human'
meaning a continuant (I am the same person I was
ten years ago) from 'human' meaning a human
lifespan, whereas a differently framed ontology
would not make this distinction. So, is the set
{Pat, Pat's life} a singleton or not? I suggest
the right answer to questions like this is, you
can have it both ways. If anyone wants to make a
distinction like this, they are free to do so. If
someone else wants to not make the distinction,
then evidently what they mean by 'human' isn't
the same as either of these, so now we have a
three-way distinction: human-A-continuant,
human-A-occurrent, and human-B which isn't either
an occurrent or a continuant. (Maybe its a kind
of blend or sum of these ideas, but that way of
putting it isn't very helpful as A thinks this is
logically incoherent and B doesn't know what
'continuant' means in the first place. B might be
thinking about 4-d worms, or some such idea: the
A notion of continuant doesn't make sense in that
way of thinking.) (08)
Each of these inherits using the higher axioms
from its own ontology, but you had better not let
them cross-inherit, or everything goes
pear-shaped very quickly. So then we need the
bridging axioms to connect these together
appropriately: but until you agree to accept the
distinctions, you can't even get the axioms
written: if you try to get rid of the
distinctions by generalizing upwards , or by
asking everyone to please stop arguing and agree,
you will never get the problem solved. Its
important to let 10|3 flowers bloom, then find
ways to cross-breed them. (09)
But note, its not that these A and B folk differ
about anything that a philosophical layman would
consider to be a question of fact about what
'human' really, in some sense, means. They all
would say, when faced with an actual human, that
this is what they are talking about. They all
would say that they are just writing down
ordinary everyday common sense knowledge, and
they would all be right. Its just that they would
encode this same ordinary knowledge into
different logical/philosophical/ontological
styles when they go to the formalism. (010)
>I am not worried about global consistency (011)
:-) I am. I have no idea how to rationally handle
global inconsistency, and I havnt heard a
sensible proposal for how to do it. And its very
easy to arrange global consistency (assuming
local consistency) so why not just assume it and
move on? (012)
>and in fact can tolerate two
>domain ontologies that use the same middle/upper to be mutually
>inconsistent. (013)
Its easy to make them consistent by using
disjoint vocabularies. If there are three (or
seventeen) notions of 'human', use three (or
seventeen) different logical names to denote
them. Or use a more systematic way of assigning
meanings to names, e.g. by using contexts or
contextualized names. (014)
>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). (015)
Well, that 'treating special' is what Im
suggesting to do as a general policy, from the
get-go. Rather than think of merging ontologies
as a kind of addition, and an inconsistency as
something that requires triage or repair, think
instead that one would not expect that ANY
concepts from one coherent ontology will be
exactly identifiable with ANY concept in another.
Treat them as strangers, then introduce them
carefully. If they do turn out to be the same,
its very easy to write the bringing axiom: (016)
(= TomatoInA TomatoInB) (017)
Pat (018)
>
>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
>
>
>-----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
>
>>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?
>
>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.
>
>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
>
>(forall ((x Acontinuant))(= (A2B x)(A2B (lifespan x))))
>
>and in the reverse direction
>
>(forall ((x BtemporalThing)(r
>AoccurrentProperty)) (if (Acontinuant (B2A
>x))(iff (r x)((B2A r)(lifespan (B2A x)) )))
>
>and so on.
>
>
>>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
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|