>Pat,
> What you say is plausible if we are talking about people
>interpreting the concepts, and eliminating nonsensical interpretation
>via context and common sense. But for automated interpretation, the
>URI mechanism has serious problems. (01)
No, Im talking about automated systems. (02)
> Just what is a dc:author? (03)
Good question because it is the perfect example
of a bad question. A dc:author is whatever the
community of users takes it to be. And by
'community' here I mean to include the software
on the Web which is using ontologies containing
dc:author. That is the best that one can say, and
it is all that needs to be said. (If it fails to
satisfy a philosopher, tough luck for the
philosopher: we aren't doing philosophy here. :-) (04)
The merit of this answer is that it tells you
exactly why the concept is useful: it allows
members of this community to communicate reliably
with one another (most of the time, of course,
nothing is perfect) simply by transferring
content using globally shared concepts. (05)
> How
>many books did "anonymous" write? If Mozart is your favorite composer,
>is Mozart a "Person?" If dead people aren't "Persons" then what kind
>of entity wrote books back in the 1700's? Just where is Mozart these
>days, anyway? (06)
Why do you care? Why does the machine care? Im
not saying that having URIs around makes all
questions magically answerable. (07)
> You and I know the answers, but do you know of any
>machine that can figure that out using URIs? (08)
What do you mean, "using URIs"? URIs are just
names. You figure out things like this by using
ontologies of personhood, livingness, etc.. My
point is only that particular concepts like
'being the author of' can achieve a global
identity simply by the re-use of a concept name
between thousands or millions of small ontologies
(many of which are embedded in systems that act
in the real world, further constraining the
global meaning); in effect, the entire SWeb
becomes a single global ontology by virtue of the
cross-links in re-usage of concept names. It is
exactly like the way that human vocabulary
achieves meaning by being re-used by members of a
linguistic community. There is nothing in the
actual word "fish" that makes it mean things that
swim in water; it does so because that's the way
that English speakers use it. Similarly, there's
not much in the DC ontology itself that makes
'dc:author' mean author: it does so because
that's how 10|5 foaf ontologies (tiny fragments
of markup) use it. But 10|5 little fragments
carry a lot of authority. (09)
> I haven't seen one, and
>though I can imagine mechanisms to provide proper interpretations to
>machines, using URIs from multiple ontologies seems much more likely to
>confuse and hinder than to assist. (010)
I disagree. I think it is the key way - perhaps
the only way, ultimately - by which any kind of
global coherence between ontologies can be
achieved. (011)
> Folksonomies for human consumption
>are fun, but for machine consumption seem more hindrance than help. (012)
Evidence for this pessimism? They seem to be
working so far. But Im not suggesting
folksonomies, in fact, in this debate. (013)
Pat Hayes (014)
>
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:48 PM
>To: Cassidy, Patrick J.
>Cc: common upper ontology working group
>Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] The next key question
>
>>The reference mechanism has some merit, but very limited. It's useful
>>if the referenced concepts are very well and unambiguously defined,
>and
>>those who use it read and understand the documentation properly.
>
>True, you do have to actually read the ontologies
>you are referring to. But the process most
>emphatically does not require unambiguous
>definitions of concepts. On the contrary, in
>fact: it seems to work best with comparatively
>weakly defined ones. First, we should be clear:
>there is no such thing as a *definition* in OWL
>(or CL or IKL) in the strict sense. There are
>only assertions. Some of the most widely used
>'concepts' are those about which the base
>ontology says virtually nothing, such as
>dc:author from the Dublin Core. This has been
>used so widely now that its meaning is in fact
>defined more by its uses than anything any
>ontology says about it. The DC authors weren't
>thinking about authorship of emails, but there
>are now tens of thousands of websites which use
>it in this sense. So, does it mean that? I would
>say, yes.
>
>As for the rest of your issues, they are all
>possible, of course. But to me they have the air
>of 'the sky might be falling'. Of course
>misunderstandings and mis-uses will occur: but
>the normal socio-economic forces of the Web
>(especially the commercial Web) all act so as to
>quickly locate, correct, minimize or isolate such
>mis-uses: and that is what will in fact occur.
>The SWeb will never be perfect, just as the real
>Web isn't. But it will be quickly
>self-correcting, and it will be always useful.
>
>>But:
>> (1) Two different ontologists may mean exactly the same thing and
>> point to two different URI's - which may or may not be
>> intended to mean the same thing -- but the relation of the
>> two concept will be indeterminate.
>
>Why? If someone points to them both and says they
>are the same, and if this assertion is widely
>reiterated or widely depended on, then they are
>the same concept, whether or not the original
>authors thought they were. More usefully, if one
>is used by one subcommunity and the other by
>another, and these subcommunities come to use
>them with slightly different meanings (say,
>'person' in the legal and biological senses) then
>indeed, the two meanings will evolve apart,
>usefully for each subcommunity; but also in their
>history recording their common lineage.
>
>> (2) two different ontologists may interpret a URI differently and
>>point to it
>> though they mean different things -- this can easily happen with
>>the
>> very poor documentation typical of on-line knowledge
>>classifications
>
>Yes, it can, but again there are only pressures
>to correct such mutual divergences of opinion (if
>they matter, ie if they give rise to unwanted
>contradictions; and if they do not, then this
>situation is harmless, in spite of the intentions
>of the ontologists)
>
>> (3) in an ontology, there may be a pointer to a URI in some online
>>ontology for
>> concept A, and a pointer to a URI in another ontology for
>concept
>>B,
>> and in the referring ontology, concept B may be defined as a
>>subclass of
>> concept A, though in reality the original B and A may have
>little
>>in common.
>
>What is 'reality' here? Are you saying that the
>referring ontology (call it C) is simply wrong?
>Well, yes, ontologies may have errors in them, I
>see no way to legislate against that possibility.
>But if you mean only that C disagrees with what
>the A and B authors had in mind, then I think
>here we simply have divergences of opinion about
>the facts: again, nothing can be done to prevent
>such disagreements. Indeed, they can often be a
>valuable source of information about the sources
>of the ontologies themselves.
>
>>
>> The act of referring to some URI will only be as useful as the
>>definition
>>attached to that URI is unambiguous.
>
>I PROFOUNDLY disagree. Quite the opposite. The
>very idea of unambiguous definitions is anathema
>to good ontology engineering, IMO.
>
>> Ambiguity abounds, and
>>indeterminacy of
>>the relations of concepts in different ontologies is very high. When
>>we think that concepts are clear, it may just be because we are
>>disambiguating in context in a way that no machine can do with
>>existing programs.
>
>Quite. So we should revel in ambiguity (which
>would be better described as under-specification)
>rather than try to prevent or avoid it.
>
>>
>> A common foundation ontology ('upper ontology' is a misleading
>>metaphor,
>>causing much misconception and grief) is the easiest way to achieve
>the
>>interoperability
>>we all think is desirable.
>
>I hope not, as we will never have such a common
>foundation on which all will agree. Fortunately,
>this impossible dream is also completely
>unnecessary.
>
>> But . . .
>>
>> Winston Churchill once remarked that "You can always count on
>>Americans to do the
>>right thing -- after they have tried all the alternatives."
>>
>> Alas, it seems that ontologists are proving him right once again.
>
>Well, I'm still not an American.
>
>Pat Hayes
>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schoening, James R
>>C-E LCMC CIO/G6
>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:23 AM
>>To: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [cuo-wg] The next key question
>>
>>CDSI WG,
>>
>> Given Pat Hayes' description (below) of what Jim Hendler refers
>>to as "URI-based reference mechanism
>> coupled with the standard for KR and other aspects is
>>aimed exactly at scalability.":
>>
>> The key question now is: Could the above referenced
>technology
>>(when it matures) be used to achieve semantic interoperability across
>>large numbers of domains (with independently developed ontologies)?
>>Any takers?
>>
>>Jim Schoening
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, here's my take on that.
>>>
>>> First, "standard for KR". I think all that Jim means is, the SWeb
>is
>>> intended to use whatever is the best available KR mechanism that
>can
>>> be adopted as a 'standard', ie which a wide enough spectrum of
>users
>>> can be persuaded to agree to use. No such choice will be free from
>>> controversy. OWL wasn't and isn't free from controversy, and nobody
>>> even knows if a large enough community can ever be brought to
>>> consensus on an acceptable Rule language. But assuming that some WG
>>> can get its job completed, and produces a useful notation, then
>that
>>> can be used on the SWeb. There are plenty of potential candidates
>>> which are way more expressive than OWL readily available. So it
>would
>>
>>> be a mistake to identify the SWeb vision with OWL or DL technology
>in
>>
>>> particular. OWL-DL is just the first in what one hopes will be an
>>> evolving series of KR standards which will provide the
>infrastructure
>>
>>> of the SWeb. Perhaps the next one will be more like
>>> Python+Prolog on steroids. Or it may be a
>>> breakthrough in CL reasoners using the guarded fragment, who knows?
>>> The decision is as much political as technical, or even subject to
>>> whims of intellectual fashion.
>>>
>>> "URI-based reference mechanism" is more interesting. This is one of
>>> the few things that really is new and different about the SWeb: it
>is
>>
>>> part of the Web, and subject to Web conventions and protocols. It
>>> isn't *just* applied ontology engineering. So, every SWeb ontology
>is
>>
>>> required to use names drawn from a (literally) global set of names.
>>> The scope of these names is the entire Web. There are no 'locally
>>> scoped' or 'private'
>>> names on the Sweb. So if your ontology uses a name for a concept,
>my
>>> ontology can use it too.
>>> Anyone can 'say' anything about everyone else's concepts, on the
>>Sweb.
>>> This is a whole new game, which nobody has played before. A can
>>> introduce a concept called A:thingie1 and B can introduce
>B:thingie2,
>>
>>> and C can then, entirely independently and without asking for A or
>>B's
>>> permission, assert that (say) A:thingie1 is the same as B:thingie2.
>A
>>
>>> and B may disagree: tough tittie, they can't stop C from making the
>>> assertion. C can say things about A's ontology, in fact, such as
>>> assert that it is all BS. The globality of the namespace has a
>whole
>>> range of consequences which we are only beginning to explore. And
>> > being URIs (actually IRIs these
>>> days) , these names can also be used as identifiers which *access*
>>> things on the Web.
>>> Whether these accessed things should be the referents of the names
>is
>>
>>> currently controversial (I think not, in general), but that they
>>> access
>>> *something* is not even remotely at issue. So SWeb concept names
>have
>>
>>> a whole new dimensionality to them, which is (or at any rate can
>be)
>>> orthogonal to their use as referring names. In particular, it
>allows
>>> ontologies to "address" other ontologies (a pale version of which
>is
>>> the OWL:imports primitive, but one can do a lot more than this),
>>which
>>> obviously has many potential applications relevant to scaling.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> BTW, I entirely agree with Jim's optimism. I think people are way
>too
>>
>>> scared of inconsistencies. Lets wait and see what problems actually
>>> crop up before trying to solve or avoid ones that we only worry
>about
>>
>>> rather than actually find.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 (015)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|