To: | <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:40:40 -0500 |
Message-id: | <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C905626D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I had one perspective
I wanted to contribute to the discussion about “parts” between Nicholas and
Barry. The exchange
was: N>We need identity
to make sense of "a123 part-of b456". How do I N>recognize
'a123' among all possible instances? B>Typically it will
be you who has baptised the relevant instance by using this
designation. Thus you may have baptised your heart as 'a123'. If you do not
know what instance 'a123' stands for, then do B>not use this
instance designator in your work! Perhaps part of Nick’s
question concerns the cognition of “recognition” and how it relates to our
ontological assertion. Barry
describes the “designation” as having been “baptized”, which I take to be a
certain type of formalization. It
seems to me that one interpretation of the cognitive processes involved in
ontological analysis (OA) is that it is model based. The analyst employs a “reference model”,
which in might a common sense one of parts, but for sophisticated analysis
should be an externally available idea such as from mereology. If I am a beginner in OA, I might not
use many distinctions and indeed may not understand how proper parts
(proper part, PP, is
any part excluding the whole ) or components differ
from fiat parts (e.g. the engine is a component of a part, while the left side
of the car is a part by fiat). Which brings me to
another part of the exchange on an approach to avoidling
problems N>I have a feeling
that, at a coarse level, we're more or less in agreement. >At a practical
level, there are wholes that are problematic w.r.t
what N>should we be
doing next. (09) B>Don't let worries
about the problematic cases keep you from doing B>good work with
the non-problematic cases. What’s a problem for
one modeler may not be one for another one who knows more about a domain and/or
ontological principles. Different
modeling judgments (domain interpretations) give us “conceptualization
mismatchs. To overcome this we want
a common reference model on semantic relations. For example, something that Barry would be very
familiar with, M.E.
Winston, R. Chaffin, and D. Herrmann.in “A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations.”
(Cognitive Science, 11:417–444, 1987) identifyed six meronymic senses of part-of in of
underlying the semantics of English usage. The senses are: component-integral,
stuff-object, portion-mass, place-area,
member-collection, feature-activity. The GALEN ontology of human anatomy, for
example, uses the first 5 of these as a reference and there is a formal analysis
or each. But this formalism,
available in the reference model, must be “recognized” and correctly applied (a
cognitive activity) by the ontological analyst. So U. Hahn, S. Schulz, and M.
Romacker.in “Part-whole reasoning: A case study in medical ontology
engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(5):59–67, 1999 translated the
anatomical terms in UMLS into description logic. In such work a single anatomical entity
is modeled by additional concepts that denote the structure of the entity and
their current understanding of the set of parts that correspond to the
entity – this may change over time and be re-baptized for various reasons. A
property such as perforation-of attributed to Colon Structure may correctly
generalize to Intestine Structure, as these entity structures are in an
is-a/component relationship. A
property which Hahn & Schulz suggest an analyst might make a mistake on is “inflammation-of” which they
interpret as defined to apply to an
organ entity, but not the entity structure of the organ entity, Well this is based on the analyst’s
domain knowledge which gets formalized in the Ontology. So an inference I would make (going
back to an earlier question of mine) is that while a
completed ontology might avoid the issues of language and knowledge, the process
of developing an ontology runs into both of these – which makes developing a
common ontology hard. Not to say
that it is not good to start with the low hanging fruit, just to add that the
group needs to have common reference models and common techniques of its own and
access to good domain knowledge. Regards, Gary
Berg-Cross _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Next by Date: | Re: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems -- parts, John F. Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Thread: | [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, Gary Berg-Cross |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |