Please see below. (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy, Patrick J.
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:35 PM
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: Our central COSMO focus (was RE: [ontac-forum]
> SurveyedOntology"Library" Systems -- parts)
>
> Eric -
> I believe that your point is quite relevant, that the
> precise
> nature of how theories will map to one another is an
important
> issue
> for us, and that correlating axioms in different source
> ontologies will
> be a necessary step to determine this relation, assuming
that we
> are
> not starting from ontologies already known to be consistent
with
> each
> other (which we aren't).
> But the n^2 mapping problem should only bedevil us at an
> early
> phase, when we are still evaluating alternative high-level
> ontologies.
> As I understand the earlier responses regarding the
direction of
> the
> COSMO effort, most of the group is reluctant to chose a
single
> upper
> ontology from the start, and would prefer an experimental
break-
> in
> phase when alternatives are being explored. (02)
[Eric P. said] I saw two responses. Both were against a hub approach.
I'm still curious about how pervasive those anti-hub feelings really
are. A vote would be interesting. (03)
> The formalization
> of the
> UMLS semantic network provides an opportunity to do such
> comparisons
> (DOLCE/BFO, SUMO, OpenCyc, ISO 15926) with a problem of
> restricted but
> meaningful size. I think there is a likelihood that the
lattice
> of
> theories that emerges from an attempt to reconcile different
> upper
> ontologies in this test case will have large areas of
agreement
> and
> smaller areas of disagreement. But that is what we need to
> discover,
> and this group is superbly qualified to investigate such
issues
> and to
> conduct a study of this kind.
[Eric P. said]
[Eric P. said] Remember that the lattice as Dr. Sowa just defined is a
subsumption lattice. Since one upper ontology has about a snowballs
chance of subsuming the content of another, the interesting lattice of
theories will be the one we create by grouping the axioms that we
encounter. (04)
> And a project starting from a DOLCE-like small upper
ontology
> and
> expanding rapidly into specialized areas can be conducted in
> parallel
> with the UMLS formalization. For this case, we might be
able to
> include the FEA-RMO and a mapping to the DoD Core Taxonomy,
as
> well as
> the UMLS. Although this may involve some seemingly
redundant
> effort,
> it does in fact address two different questions, and, with
the
> results
> at each phase available on our site for evaluation and
comment,
> we
> should be able to avoid genuine inefficiencies that come
from
> independent projects that are unaware of each other's
> intermediate
> results.
[Eric P. said] I strongly suspect that the only significant voting that
this group will do is to vote with the power of our individual donated
time - kind of like voting with our feet. I will be "voting" with the
creation of a DOLCE-centric hub with some initial focus on mapping in
Cyc events. (05)
Others would be free to "vote" for other hubs or n^2 anarchy and we
would end up with 'n' ontologies being lashed together in many and
varied ways. I guess that I can live with that. We can certainly find
a ways to "turn off" conflicting axioms. (06)
To include other "voted" work, I suggest we adopt a common syntax like
CL, KIF, or KFL. Ideally, it would be a symantic web language, but I've
not liked the ones that I've seen FOL-wise. But an OWL subset would be
useful. (07)
The point would be that mapping is much easier when all artifacts are in
the same format/language. And when mappings are done using axioms, then
mapping becomes literally an act of building large things out of smaller
ones. (08)
> I also find the notion of extracting whole class trees
from
> existing
> well-constructed ontologies to be an attractive method. I
think
> there
> is a lot to like in the OpenCyc class hierarchy, for example
in
> the
> sections that would fit under the DOLCE "particulars"
category -
> - and
> the documentation is excellent. Trees under
> "personWithOccupation",
> "Organization", Paths", "Artifact" and "Event" appear well-
> structured
> to me, and could be incorporated as is, with supplementation
> (and
> perhaps some reinterpretation) where ONTACWG members believe
> that their
> own domain concepts do not match precisely the intended
meanings
> of
> seemingly similar concepts in the growing ontology. The
> relations in
> Cyc appear to me to be worth using selectively. But there
is
> also a
> lot of valid structure in the SUMO and its extensions, as
well
> as
> axioms, many of which can be reused in the Ontology Works
IODE
> environment. I don't expect to find actual logical
> contradiction, but
> there will probably be subtle differences and overlap which
will
> require adjustment, merger, or translation, if we will take
> advantage
> of both.
> Our problem is, of course, our very limited time to work
on
> complex
> details. I will be recommending to the owners of projects I
> work on to
> allow much of the content to be made public for ONTACWG use,
as
> it
> could become more valuable to them by supplementation from
the
> work of
> others.
[Eric P. said] Right. Well said.
> I hope that we can get into substantive construction
> very
> quickly, and pushing forward with two different
methodologies
> should
> allow contributors to work within the methodology most
suitable
> to
> their own existing projects.
> Another issue is the format for the ontologies being
> constructed.
> To take advantage of all of the expertise in the ONTACWG, it
> would be
> useful to have versions of any ontology we build in KIF and
OWL
> as well
> as the IODE kfl language. We know that the higher-order
> relations,
> functions, and axioms will not be usable in the OWL
environment
> unless
> supplemented with SWRL, and even then it will be less
expressive
> than
> KIF. But the non-OWL-native information can be preserved in
> text
> strings to allow round-trip conversion. So, a final
question:
> does any
> of the ONTACWG members know of anyone who would be willing
to
> work on
> scripts translating OWL <-> KIF, KIF <-> kfl, and kfl <->
OWL?
> Those
> among us familiar with any two of those languages can help
in
> the
> translation.
>
> 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
> Peterson, Eric
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:17 AM
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Our central COSMO focus (was RE: [ontac-forum]
Surveyed
> Ontology"Library" Systems -- parts)
>
> Hi Pat (and group);
>
> My focus at work happens to be more fine-grained than the
> partial
> ordering of theories.
>
> But, perhaps there is no disagreement, because I claim that
any
> partial
> ordering of theories must either be (i) declared by fiat
(like
> ontolingua's "uses" relation or Cyc's "genlMt" relation; or
(ii)
> determined by a complete reconciliatory mapping between
> potentially all
> axioms of the respective theories. Declarative partial
ordering
> presupposes that the two theories are already consistent
with
> one
> another where one theory is "using" the other and where both
> theories
> share a common content model and meta-model.
>
> I claim that the theories that "use" one another must be
> "consistent",
> abide by a common model and, therefore, don't need to be
mapped
> to
> another. But I claim that such a endeavor (the
reconciliation
> of
> already reconciled theories) is less relevant to this group.
If
> that
> is
> true, we must determine partial ordering of theories by
first
> mapping/reconciling their respective axioms.
>
> Because my customer started with a DOLCE-derived artifact,
our
> ontology
> lacks the depth and breadth of some of the larger
ontologies.
>
> I claim that our work must have near-term relevance. And
for
> this
> group's work to be directly relevant to my customer, we
would
> need to
> make sure that any creation of a lattice of theories is
focused
> on the
> mapping of pairs of axioms to one another - in such a way as
to
> "grow"
> a
> larger effective ontology.
>
> For us, this means grafting (via mapping) subtrees of key
> content into
> DOLCE from other ontologies. I'm happy to view this a part
of a
> larger
> n^2 everything-to-everything mapping. I say n^2 because no
one
> voiced
> agreement with my proposal to agree on mapping to a single
hub
> ontology
> starting point.
>
> By making such fine-grained mappings we will be contributing
to
> the
> partial ordering of theories by mapping individual axioms to
one
> another. Only after such mapping, I claim, is partial
ordering
> of
> theories embodying differing models possible.
>
>
> Best,
>
> -Eric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy,
> Patrick J.
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:31 AM
> > To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> > Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology
> "Library"
> Systems -
> > - parts
> >
> > John's outline is, I think, a good clear summary
of
> the
> general
> > goals
> > that I also believe this group can make progress
> toward. I
> > would just
> > add one additional point:
> >
> > Since interoperability of different systems
will
> hinge
> on
> the
> > clear
> > specification of how their conceptual models are
> related, a
> > registry
> > that will serve for our purposes should have
built-
> in
> mechanisms
> > for
> > specifying at some level of detail how different
> ontologies
> > relate to
> > each other. At the lowest level, no analysis
may
> have been
> made
> > to
> > determine how one ontology relates to others in
the
> registry,
> > and it
> > will stand on its own in isolation. At another
> level, a
> domain
> > ontology may have been built explicitly to be
> defined by
> and
> to
> > conform
> > to the theories in some upper ontology in the
> registry.
> There
> > can be
> > partial alignment as well, and some method would
be
> helpful
> to
> > specify
> > in a usable way how the ontologies in the
registry
> relate
> to
> > each
> > other; two domain ontologies, for example, may
be
> logically
> > consistent
> > except with respect to some restricted uses in a
> particular
> > context.
> > Dagobert Soergel has taken the initiative to
> begin
> organizing
> > the
> > ONTACWG subgroup that will study what our
> requirements are
> for
> > registries, so that we can make recommendations
to
> the
> groups
> > that are
> > actually building registry systems. He will be
> sending a
> note
> > to the
> > list soon.
> > The important distinction between the
proposed
> Common
> > Semantic Model
> > and a simple registry of ontologies is that to
be a
> component of
> > the
> > COSMO, the logical relations of a theory must be
> specified
> > clearly, in
> > the manner John describes, or perhaps some other
at
> least
> as
> > precise,
> > to the others in the COSMO, so that the
relations
> between
> > concepts in
> > different theories, and particularly identity,
will
> be
> > recognizable and
> > usable for automated reasoning.
> > This does not preclude inclusion in our
registry
> of
> Knowledge
> > Classification Systems that have not yet been
> related to
> others
> > by such
> > logical specification. Such KCSs will serve as
a
> knowledge
> > resource
> > for extension of the COSMO, and if they can be
> related to
> other
> > KCSs in
> > any way, may also help to improve both the
breadth
> and
> accuracy
> > of the
> > COSMO, but also searching capabilities for
search
> tools
> that
> use
> > these
> > classifications.
> >
> > 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
> John F.
> > Sowa
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:02 AM
> > To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology
> "Library"
> Systems -
> > - parts
> >
> > Nicolas, Pat, Barry, et al.,
> >
> > This thread is getting into issues that are
covered
> > by the proposal for a lattice of theories:
> >
> > 1. All theories that anybody might propose
about
> > any subject whatever would be registered in
a
> > standard form in a metadata registry.
> Registering
> > something does *not* imply any official
status
> > other than a commitment to save it in a
> convenient
> > place for other people to examine it, use
it,
> and
> > comment on it.
> >
> > 2. Some theories in the registry would be more
> general
> > and more widely reusable than others.
Those
> are the
> > ones that would eventually become the core
of
> many,
> > if not most practical ontologies. But
there
> would be
> > no need for an a priori blessing or
> canonization of
> > any particular theory. Instead, the users
> would
> > "vote by their feet", so to speak, in
deciding
> for
> > themselves which ones to choose for any
> particular
> > application. The various choices and
patterns
> of
> > use and reuse would be added to the
commentary
> in
> > the registry.
> >
> > 3. In order to keep track of how theories are
> related
> > to one another it is essential to show how
they
> > can be derived from or be converted into
one
> another
> > by the AGM operators for belief revision:
> contraction,
> > expansion, and revision.
> >
> > 4. The three AGM operators define a lattice,
in
> which
> > the partial ordering defined by
specialization
> and its
> > inverse, generalization: expansion adds
axioms
> to a
> > theory to make it more specialized;
contraction
> deletes
> > axioms from a theory to make it more
> generalized; and
> > revision does contraction followed by
expansion
> in
> > order to move from one theory to another,
which
> is a
> > sibling of a common parent.
> >
> > To use the example of part-whole relations,
there
> are large
> > numbers of axioms for many different variations.
> See, for
> > example, the excellent book by Peter Simons
called
> _Parts_,
> > which goes into great detail about many
different
> > axiomatizations
> > and their relationships to one another. Peter
did
> not
> organize
> > the theories in a lattice, but it would be
possible
> to do
> so.
> >
> > In summary, we could adopt the current work on
> metadata
> > registries as a means of registering theories
and
> making
> them
> > available for further use, reuse, commentary,
and
> analysis.
> > One important aspect of the analysis would be to
> demonstrate
> > how the various theories are related by the
three
> AGM
> > operators (to which I suggest a fourth operator
> called
> > "analogy", which renames the predicates in a
theory
> while
> > preserving the implicational structure).
> >
> > The result of the analysis would be a
step-by-step
> > construction of a hierarchy of theories, ordered
by
> > specialization/generalization. An important
aspect
> of
> > the registry would be the ability to comment on
the
> > theories to show which ones are more widely used
or
> > more relevant to various kinds of applications.
> >
> > In short, analysis demonstrates the theoretical
> relationships
> > among the theories, and commentary demonstrates
the
> practical
> > patterns of use and reuse for various
applications.
> Both
> > are necessary for a growing and evolving system.
> >
> > John Sowa
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
> gWG
>
>
________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|