The Doerr paper provided by Roy contains, I'm
afraid, a number of the familiar strange
artefacts generated by the concept orientation.
Thus from the diagram on p. 7 we can infer what
seems to me to be nonsense, for example: (01)
situation is_a temporality (02)
but not: time is_a temporality (03)
work is_a abstraction (04)
but not: actuality is_a abstraction (05)
agent is_a actuality (06)
but not: (07)
action is_a actuality (08)
item is_a artifact (09)
(all items are artifacts?!?) (010)
If we are aiming to provide a hub ontology which
will command general agreement across a large
cross-disciplinary community we will need to do much better than this.
BS (011)
At 02:17 PM 11/13/2005, Roy Roebuck wrote:
>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
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> name="Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration -"
> JODI_Oct2002.pdf"
>Content-Description: Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration -
> JODI_Oct2002.pdf
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration -"
> JODI_Oct2002.pdf"
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|