Jim, (01)
The list you give is the right one to consider, based on standard issues. (02)
Of those you listed, I feel the most critical are: (03)
1) Maturity IF the underlying capability is sufficient. (04)
2) Robustness should be available in all candidates, but the definition of
robustness should be examined. What does robustness mean? Because there is
a concern that "logic" itself may present a constraint on flexibility of
use; the notion of robustness might be best applied to the quality of how
data in encoded in computer memory, how well data retrieval and management
is performed. If Robustness has to do with theorem proving, then we need at
least acknowledge that there is an issue related to the non-monotonic nature
of many real world uses for ontological models. (05)
2.1) As one might suspect, I would suggest "syntax robustness" (example:
does the UDEF and other coding system work effectively as finite state
machines) and some type of openness is then necessary for the logic
(inferential entailment) and the assignment of purpose, attributed goals and
the other dimensions to "meaning". (06)
3) We feel that the adoption issue is a false issue. Our opinion is that
adoption has been forced by many of the consensus activities in the past but
that deep insufficiencies in that which was adopted lead to eventual failure
of the standard and a shift in attention to a new standardization process.
I believe that this is John Sowa's position also - but I will not speak for
him and I recognize that his position is different from mine (at least for
now). I know many other leading "knowledge scientists" who have similar
positions on the standards. They have to sue them but would prefer not to: (07)
Quote Holger Krublauch (whom I do not personally know so I may not be
properly representing his position) in recent message to (08)
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html (09)
<quote>
there may be a couple of critical methods missing in the database
backend. This is not only an omission for the OWL Plugin, but a
general limitation in Protege. Whether there are plans to implement
them I cannot say (maybe the new folks at Stanford have some plans).
Furthermore, many methods may be very inefficient, perhaps too
inefficient for advanced query support in database mode. (010)
Anyway, in the meantime I suggest you look into whether you find your
way around yourself. If your application is not tied to Protege, you
could also just convert your database to a Jena database and then run
the SparQL queries on it. (011)
<end quote> (012)
So the adoption of Protege has occurred, it is the standard way to edit OWL
ontology. But one of the core group at Stanford is leaving and has that to
say about it. (013)
Cost) If it is not free then I should not be considered. These are basic
tools. They are industry standards. (014)
Domain friendly is an interesting area of discussion. (015)
Please , everyone I am really hoping to change my approach to this
discussion by learning a great deal more about things like the large Protege
2000 UMLS and how it is being used to support data analysis. I am reading
again alot, so let us look carefully at the issues. (016)
Let us see if we can all move forward a little and then figure out something
correct with respect to this hub/common/upper issue. (017)
Paul (018)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Schoening, James
R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:13 PM
To: 'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'
Subject: [ontac-forum] Evaluation Criteria for a Common Upper Ontology (019)
All, (020)
John Sowa asked: "If there is a need for a single upper ontology, by
what
criteria could we judge which, if any, of the current proposals are worthy
candidates? (021)
Here's one set of evaluation questions developed by members of the IEEE
Standard Upper Ontology WG. (022)
1. Maturity
How ready is it to use now ?
What capabilities have already been demonstrated ?
Time and resources needed to start using ?
Potential for improvement.
2. Robustness
Heavy weight vs. light weight ontology features ?
Potential for improving robustness ?
How well it handle known requirements such as those listed in SUO Scope
and
Purpose ?
3. Potential For Broad Acceptance
How well will it support maximum number of domains ?
4. Language Flexibility
What ontology language is it in ?
How stable is language ?
If desired, could it be written in different ontology language ?
5. Ownership/Cost
Who owns it ?
Any proprietary restrictions on use ?
Will there be charges for utilization ?
How will it changed and who controls the changes ?
Is it being developed by Standard Developing Organization ?
6. Domain Friendly
How easy is it to develop domain ontologies based on the upper ontology
? (023)
These questions are also posted at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/. (024)
Some actual evaluations are at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/,
which
is set up as an open forum for anyone to evaluate any upper ontology. I'm
Chair of the IEEE SUO WG, so subscribers of this ONTAC forum are welcome to
use this web site to post evaluations. We could also update the questions
if we want. (025)
I'm in favor of doing an evaluation, not for a final selection, but so
different developers can try out different candidates. But there is the
chance one could gain momentum. (026)
Question: If there were any level of agreement on the best upper
ontology,
are there any members of this group that would use or test it to any
significant degree? Perhaps those individuals should get together and see
if they can agree on a selection. (027)
Jim Schoening (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|