Hi
I submit to Eric and this forum that I also support a hub approach to
COSMO, which I previously described as a "general ontology" for use
in building an "Enterprise Knowledge Base" as an extension of what is
commonly called "enterprise architecture". This hub ontology is
also called a "core ontology" by published researchers at http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i01/Doerr/
(see attached), and which I've also called an "enterprise backplane"
and "enterprise framework".
I would emphasize that our purpose here is not a philosophical and/or
purist/academic ontology, but beyond that, a practical, engineered, usable
implemented enterprise architecture for the Federal Government and its stakeholders,
as a day-to-day operational knowledge-base, built from an integrating commonly
understandable and extensible framework, called an ontology by this forum.
I would submit that discussing and exploring a continuum of enterprise-wide
capabilities:
·
From basic search,
·
to vocabulary extraction,
·
to vocabulary management (via
taxomonies, data dictionaries, thesauri, etc.),
·
to conceptual mapping/diagramming/modeling,
·
to semantic threads/networks for a
given subject,
·
to security/access/distribution modeling
for users and processes,
·
to situational modeling,
·
to situational awareness,
·
to aggregate semantic models
representing shared meanings (world-views, vantage points),
·
to shared virtual applications,
·
to a common world-view of how
things work (i.e., a common ontology),
·
to a common/shared knowledge-based
that integrates virtual applications
is our mission. This whole-enterprise mission is not attainable,
in my opinion, without such a “hub ontology” approach.
Roy
CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management,
Security, and Knowledge
Roy Roebuck III
Senior Enterprise
Architect
2231 Crystal Drive,
Ste 501
Arlingon, VA 22202
roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mobile:
fax:
direct:
+1 (703)-598-2351
+1 (703) 486-5540
+1 (703) 486-5506
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peterson, Eric
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 3:49 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: Our central COSMO focus (was RE:
[ontac-forum]SurveyedOntology"Library" Systems -- parts)
Please see below.
>
-----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.
[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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
