|
Dagobert,
regarding the focus:
[DS]
----------------------------------
>>> The steps I outlined could certainly applied
to any subset of upper level ontologies. We start with those that are of
particular relevance to Federal government.
There is also a question of
whether we should focus on
- entity types (called semantic types
in the UMLS-SN)
- relationship types
- subject fields/disciplines and their
upper subdivisions or facets
I do not mean to imply
that these are mutually exclusive, they are just pragmatic divisions. The
CYC upper ontology mixes all three.
-----------------------------------
I am particularly concerned with formalizing the semantic relations,
as these tend to be used inconsistently when not formalized. But to
interpret them, we may well need almost all of the classes of the UMLS-SN.
Barry
Smith has described a set of basic relations that should be included in a
biomedical ontology:
These
would need to be included in a COSMO, but we will certainly need others.
With luck, the others may already exist in axiomatized form in one of the
existing UOs, except perhaps the specialized chemistry/biochemistry
ones.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial
Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell:
908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email:
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
The steps I outlined could certainly applied to any subset of upper
level ontologies. We start with those that are of particular relevance
to Federal government.
There is also a question of whether we should
focus on
- entity types (called semantic types in the UMLS-SN)
- relationship types
- subject fields/disciplines and their upper subdivisions or facets
I do not mean to imply that these are mutually exclusive, they are
just pragmatic divisions. The CYC upper ontology mixes all
three.
Having directed a dissertation applying the UMLS-SN, I can only
agree with Barry. My student made a number of
suggestions.
DS
At 10/9/2005 07:06 PM, Barry Smith
wrote:
As Olivier will confirm, there
are many things wrong with the UMLS-SN, which is why an effort is currently
on-going to rebuild it.
BS
At 06:30 PM 10/9/2005, Cassidy, Patrick
J. wrote:
Dagobert,
That
looks like an excellent summary of a methodology to find
commonality
among the existing UOs.
I mentioned in a previous note
that I though that it might be
helpful to focus initially on that part
of existing UOs required to
formalize and relate several existing
Knowledge Classifications such as
the UMLS-SN, FEA-RMO top level, and
DoD Core Taxonomy top level. Do
you view such a focus as
consistent with the overall plan you
describe?
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE
Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop:
MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax:
732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
-----Original
Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dagobert
Soergel
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 3:19 PM
To:
ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontac-forum] Upper ontology /
common semantic model
I am separating out this part of the
thread.
I apologize if some of this is obvious. It is often "hard
to
understand what is understood".
This is a suggested plan of
work for the upper ontology
subgroup
1 Collect suggested
upper ontologies
2 Compare and
determine
differences
2.1
In elements (presence / absence and, more
difficult,
definition)
2.2
in relationships
3 Try to
resolve differences, creating a superstructure
that
incorporates
the non-contradictory parts of various
schemes
3.1
By adding
elements
3.2
By adding relationships
4
Articulate the remaining differences so that they are
clearly
understood
In addition, the subgroup should deal with
ontologies that can be
reused in many contexts, such as an ontology of
time concepts.
My reworking of the WordNet top level (attached) may
be useful in this
context.
DS
Dagobert
Soergel
College of Information Studies
University of
Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD
20742-4345
Office: 301-405-2037 Home:
703-823-2840
Mobile:
703-585-2840
OFax:
301-314-9145 HFax:
703-823-6427
dsoergel@xxxxxxx www.dsoergel.com
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post:
mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared
Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community
Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared
Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community
Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
Dagobert Soergel
College of Information
Studies
University of Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD
20742-4345
Office: 301-405-2037 Home:
703-823-2840 Mobile:
703-585-2840
OFax:
301-314-9145 HFax: 703-823-6427
dsoergel@xxxxxxx www.dsoergel.com
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (01)
|