Wholeheartedly agree. (01)
Antoinette Arsic
Sr. Information Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
703-337-9016 (VOIP)
*703-983-5286 (new office number, was 883)
*443-567-2703 (new cell) (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:19 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems (03)
Barry, (04)
Yes. However, it is not the exact relationships that are described
here that
are as important as the idea that relationships can have meanings, and
that the
meanings can be defined and managed. This is what we are beginning to
do by
examining the relationships among concepts in large training sets which
are
domain specific. (05)
I also do not think, though, that the relationships I have seen defined
by the
ontology community are sufficiently rigorous to meet the needs of
individual
domains. The revision of Z39.19 made progress over elaborating the
types
traditional thesaurus relationships that are supported. However, the
major
area of concern in the entire approach to thesaurus relationing has for
me
always been the RT's - which is everything beyond an equivalent or a
hierarchical concept relationship. It is in the RT areas and their
elaboration
that we find the convergence of ontological relationships and thesaurus
relationships. (06)
Many of us have been pushing to for the critical convergence over the
past
several years. Unfortunately, there has been some resistance in both
communities. I think the work we are trying to do at the Bank may
help people
to see the convergence. This is why in the slide I sent to NCOR I
pushed for
some real projects. (07)
There is one other problem area that we also need to tackle in this
community -
the difference between a classification (mathematical set theory) and a
classification of concepts (biological taxonomy). These are two
different
behaviors, and I see them referenced too often as the same approach. (08)
Best regards,
Denise (09)
Barry Smith (010)
<phismith@buffa (011)
lo.edu>
To
Sent by: ONTAC-WG General Discussion (012)
ontac-forum-bou <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (013)
nces@xxxxxxxxxx
cc
.net (014)
Subject
RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed
Ontology
10/25/2005 "Library" Systems (015)
12:23 PM (016)
Please respond (017)
to (018)
ONTAC-WG (019)
General (020)
Discussion (021)
<ontac-forum@co (022)
lab.cim3.net> (023)
In response to the valuable KOS document posted by Dagobert, I would
like to draw the forum's attention to current developments on the
ISO/CEN front regarding ambiguities in use of the word 'concept'. (024)
It is clear that the concepts represented in concepts systems stand
in meaning relations such as narrower_than, broader_than, etc. It is
correct, for example, that the concept structured document
narrower_than the concept document. (025)
The problems arise with respect to (026)
3.1.3 Associative relationships (027)
for example part_of, causes, located_in, derives_from, adjacent_to,
etc. (028)
It is not correct to say, for example, that the concept heart part_of
the concept human, or that the concept cell nucleus part_of the
concept cell, or that the concept lung located_in pleural cavity. (029)
Rather it is instances of types in reality which stand in such
relations, and it is these relations, and the corresponding instances
and types, which are the proper object of ontology: (030)
See http://ontology.buffalo.edu/concepts/ConceptsandOntologies.pdf (031)
BS (032)
On a proposal (033)
At 12:07 PM 10/24/2005, you wrote:
>We do not have the resources to create an ontology library
>system. Rather we should adopt one once we are further along. At
>that point we can use the criteria in the Ding & Fensel article but
>need to update the survey.
>
>Right now we need an ontology registry, which is a much more
>light-weight proposition. Since much information for constructing
>full-fledged rigorous ontologies can be gleaned from other types of
>Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), we actually need a KOS
>registry. There are many attempts at creating such registries
>(going back to the sixties), but none has been successful in the
>sense of being maintained continuously. However, it is now possible
>to set up a web-enabled database where authors (individuals or
>organizations) can register their own ontologies and other KOS in a
>structured format. (A WIKI is not the best tool for this.) Such a
>registry should also cover use cases for ontologies
>
>I am working on possibly using a database tool for this purpose that
>was prototyped by a government agency.
>
>Attached are two documents, one a set of evaluation criteria for KOS
>and one giving templates for describing KOS and KOS use cases in a
>database. This materials have been developed with more traditional
>schemes such as MeSH or Snomed or the Art and Architecture Thesaurus
>in mind, so they need to be extended to capture characteristics and
>uses of formal ontologies.
>
>In the registry, the KOS must be identified by subject domain. Many
>different approaches to this can coexist, and the scheme that Roy
>suggests can certainly be one of these approaches. The concepts to
>be used for this subject indexing of KOS need to be understandable
>for people but need not to be as carefully specified as concepts in
>a formal ontology.
>
>We formed a subgroup to consider registries. It seems that we need
>to establish for sure who wanted to participate. Pat and I believe
>the group includes at least the people listed below, but we also
>believe there were more. So please add your name if you are
>interested. The group should meet soon to work on the problems
>outlined above and get this going, as a registry is a step that
>should logically precede working on comparing ontologies.
>
>DS
>
>Ontology/KOS registry WG
>
>Pat Cassidy
>Roy Roebuck
>Olivier Bodenreider
>Dagobert Soergel
>
>
>
>
>
>At 10/22/2005 01:18 PM, Roy Roebuck wrote:
>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5D72C.9A2912C9"
>>
>>Excellent! I've reviewed the material Gary cites, and agree that
>>an "ontology library" capability would be very useful in the COSMO,
>>ONTAC, SICOP, and Web-Service collaborations. I also submit that a
>>"natural" outline of ontologies (i.e., packages of functions,
>>processes, and process input/control/output/mechanism resources
>>such as metadata, data, funds, skills) as services could be
>>organized using the General Ontology (GO) as outlined below:
>>
>
>
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinati
ngWG (034)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (035)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (036)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (037)
|