[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

To: ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Ken Ewell <mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:38:12 -0500
Message-id: <43CC74B4.3000401@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Patrick,    (01)

I don't think you properly registered John Sowa's response to your 
original Shall We Start? message.     (02)

The core must be far more simple than the ontology you propose to start 
with, therefore it does not make much sense to add items to it.  If I 
were to subtract from it, I would move it all to a hub and not the core 
or UF.    (03)

I also had a problem with the vague notion of the common ontology versus 
the ontologies of independent programs or hub-type ontologies, in 
paragraph 8.0 and your response to my question in paragraph 8.1 of your 
original message.    (04)

You wrote:     (05)

>[PC] The logic of interactions of entities in any program that will
>interoperate conceptually with another program must be specified in the
>ontologies of those programs, which must be either identical or related
>to each other by some common defining ontology.  
Everything after the comma is an afterthought when it should be the 
primary concern as it IS_A COSMO.  There is no way the ground rules 
should be left to arbitrary specification in the ontologies of 
independent programs. This logic *must* be specified in the core and 
UF.  It must not be an encumbrance but a facilitation and it must be 
completely open and accessible to all -- just like the ASCII table or 
UNICODE.  If the system architecture assumes the core, hub and 
specialized modules John Sowa recommends there should be no problem 
accommodating such conceptual constructs as selfConnectedObject(SUMO) 
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=en&term=SelfConnectedObject>    (06)

.    (07)

After that first sentence I cannot tell which ontology you are referring 
to, the ontology of the application or the common ontology:    (08)

>All of
>the rules - groundrules, first-floor rules, etc., for program object
>interaction must be specified in the ontology.  The programmers in such
>a model-driven system can freely change the inputs and output
>interfaces by procedural code without mucking up the ontology or its
>logic.  But data interaction and processing rules must be in the
>ontology.  This may require that the ontology have a mechanism for
>including procedural specifications, and the ontology, with perhaps an
>associated sequence specification (main function) may be viewed as an
>executable specification.  The COSMO may never itself be an executable
>specification, but more expressive ontologies that are compatible with
>the COSMO may serve this function.  I think this is an issue that we
>will not be able to examine in any analytical manner until we have
>agreement on the basic structure of the COSMO.
And on the last point I would venture that there is no agreement on the 
top level ontology you put forward at 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/TopLevel2.    (09)

And then Patrick wrote:    (010)

>But "Semantic Interoperability" merely means that the concept meanings
>used are the same.  
I am having trouble converting Food to a disjointDecomposition.  How can any 
two ontologies agree with this unless they are performing the same operation 
that requires such an odd  relationship and definition for Food?    (011)

-Ken Ewell    (012)

ontac-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:    (013)

>Send ontac-forum mailing list submissions to
>       ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       ontac-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>       ontac-forum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of ontac-forum digest..."
>Today's Topics:
>   1. RE: Shall we start? - sub (10) (Cassidy, Patrick J.)
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:47:48 -0500
>From: "Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)
>To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ONTAC Forum <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID: <6ACD6742E291AF459206FFF2897764BE8158B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>    The proposed starting set of concepts for the TopLevel ontology
>which could eventually serve as the core/UF/COSMO ontology is presented
>as an indented list (latest version) at:
>               http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/TopLevel2
>There is a pointer on that page to the OWL version of the same ontology
>(at this point little more than a bare taxonomy).
>This is a WIki and can be modified by anyone.  if you decide to modify
>the suggested structure, please let us know via the ONTAC list.
>Hans Teijgeler has noted that links to concepts in the TopLevel other
>than to the SUMO concepts are missing:
>[HT] I *did* tell you that the TopLevel was rather useless to me,
>because the links often end in an error Editing Denied!. I did send you
>an HTML file with a graph and OWL listing (with definition and example)
>of the top level of 15926, and suggested to you to ask the other
>"bloodgroups" to make theirs available without having to plough through
>manuals or listings.
>The  documentation missing from the indented list is present in the OWL
>version.  Although Adam Pease has expended considerable effort to add
>links to the on-line SUMO documentation  in the indented list, no one
>(myself included) has created comparable links to other ontologies.
>The Wiki page is free for editing, and I hope others will add in links
>if they feel they are useful.  I have been occupied with other urgent
>tasks lately and have not had time to put in those links myself.  An
>example of how to add links to other ontologies can be found in the
>entry for :
>          Action(Cyc)
>YC> /IntentionalProcess(SUMO)
>term=IntentionalProcess> /action(DOLCE)
>>/Activity(ISO 15926)
>Any who are familiar with OpenCyc or DOLCE are encouraged  to add
>pointers to those ontologies.  The definitions (documentation) can be
>added to the pages:
>   http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/OpenCycDefinitions
>or  http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/DolceDefinitions
>   and links from the indented hierarchy can be made to those
>definitions via the purple numbers (click on the purple number at the
>end of each definition to get a link)
>Pointers to the links to the original on-line ontologies have been
>added to the TopLevel2 page.
>For the OpenCyc, there is a Protege import of OpenCyc 0.7 in our
>References folder:
> . . . consisting of the three Protege text files.  This is a very
>incomplete import even of that older OpenCyc version, but the classes
>and many of the relations will be visible there, if one does not want
>to download the actual OpenCyc itself (freely available).
>[HT]  Most of the entity types I see on your TopLevel seem to me very
>specialized and probably too low in their hierarchy.
>Please feel free to add in any concepts (with documentation of the
>intended meaning, and pointers to the ontology from which they came, if
>any) if you think that they will be helpful at this stage in
>development of the COSMO.
>As a general rule, I think that if there is a task that appears
>desirable, and **only one person** can do that task, it is appropriate
>to ask that person to put it on his/her agenda.  If there is a task
>that can be done by anyone (modifying a Wiki page), it would be good if
>anyone who thinks it will be useful would undertake to perform that
>task, so that we will have the benefit of the effort of the entire
>group, and bottlenecks will not develop due to the limited time
>available from any one participant.  Of course if there is uncertainty
>about what should be done, that would be an appropriate topic for
>discussion , individually or via the list.
>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
>       From: Hans Teijgeler [mailto:hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>       Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:36 AM
>       To: Cassidy, Patrick J.
>       Cc: ONTAC Forum
>       Subject: RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)
>       Pat,
>       You wrote:
>       QUOTE
>       (10) So where do we start?
>       >>> [Barry Smith]
>       > Can we start to work out what the terms of the taxonomy
>should > be. Just a few. perhaps, to get us going. And what the >
>corresponding axioms will be?
>       >>> [John Sowa}That would be a very useful exercise.
>       Hey, guys! Over here! What about the merged ontology I put up
>on our web site? :-(
>       http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/TopLevel
>       If you think the TopLevel it is so utterly useless as to not be
>worth discussing, fine, but please say so and say why and propose an
>alternative. Should we start even smaller? The OWL version has a few
>instances in it that can serve to illustrate some elementary DL
>reasoning methods. I think we need to demonstrate inference at the
>earliest stage.
>       UNQUOTE
>       I *did* tell you that the TopLevel was rather useless to me,
>because the links often end in an error Editing Denied!. I did send you
>an HTML file with a graph and OWL listing (with definition and example)
>of the top level of 15926, and suggested to you to ask the other
>"bloodgroups" to make theirs available without having to plough through
>manuals or listings. Most of the entity types I see on your TopLevel
>seem to me very specialized and probably too low in their hierarchy.
>       Regards,
>       Hans
>       ____________________
>       Hans Teijgeler
>       ISO 15926 specialist
>       Netherlands
>       +31-72-509 2005
>       www.InfowebML.ws <http://www.infowebml.ws/>  
>       hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
>To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>Community Wiki: 
>End of ontac-forum Digest, Vol 9, Issue 26
>    (014)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (015)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>