Jim -- (01)
I'd vote for URI/OWL/Ontologies at about 6, and Executable English [1]
also at about 6, for the kinds of purposes in your use case. (02)
Of course, given the 10/90 rule, that means that there's a lot of work ahead. (03)
You may like to try to get John Linebarger at Sandia involved in
rating the maturity of URI/OWL/Ontologies, as I believe he has fielded
some work on query expansion using this approach. (04)
HTH, -- Adrian (05)
Internet Business Logic (R)
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Adrian Walker
Reengineering (06)
On 2/6/07, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
<James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pat (or anyone),
>
> OK, if what you describe is a potential solution, at what level of
>technical maturity (using scale below, from the paper) would you rate this,
>and please consider scalability as part of this assessement?
>
> 1. Basic principles observed and reported.
> 2. Technology concept and/or application formulated.
> 3. Analytical and experimental critical functions and/or characteristic
>proof of concept.
> 4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.
> 5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment.
> 6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant
>environment.
> 7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
> 8. Actual system completed and 'flight qualified' through test and
>demonstration.
> 9. Actual system 'flight proven' though successful mission operations.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:52 PM
> To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
> Cc: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [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?
>
> Sure. The direct answer to your question is, no.
> BUt that is because your question as posed misses the point: the open
>publication paradigm allows ontologies to NOT be developed independently of
>one another. They will cross-refer, use parts of other ontologies, and include
>references - eventually, one hopes, 'nuanced' references - to one another in a
>global network of semantic hyperlinks. And they will do this because to create
>a useful ontology by re-using and linking in this way will be vastly easier
>than building entire ontologies from scratch, in isolation from other ontology
>building. Think of the SWeb as a growing ontology 'library', freelyopen to all
>for modification and re-use. As pieces of this are written and found widely
>useful, the number of links to them (and the economic pressure on the
>community to find ways to preserve them) will grow, ensuring their even wider
>re-use. This effect snowballs on the Web, as we all know. As far as I can see,
>the pressures which make such phenomena as YouTube go from nothing to billions
>of users in less than a year will still operate, albeit perhaps at a different
>timescale, for the semantic web also. The semantic web is not just traditional
>ontology engineering with XML added as a kind of afterthought. It is part of
>the Web, and will be governed by Webbish laws of growth and distribution.
>
> Pat
>
> >
> >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
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|