Thanks for your reply John. (01)
Perhaps the moral of the story is that both Upper Ontology pessimists and
optimists both have or can have a similar interest in mapping or merging upper
ontologies together. Perhaps the two camps might be persuaded to map/merge in
the same way. (02)
To that end, in my previous message I tried to make the point that we need to
fix things before we try to map or merge them. I also advocate that if we are
mapping rather than merging, that we map with real ontological relations rather
than relations designed for mapping. (03)
So the act of mapping becomes loading the two ontologies into a common
enviroment and linking the two artifacts with sameAs, subClassOf, partOf, and
other relations. (04)
All my thoughts and effort toward mapping and merging upper ontologies have
been centered on the creation of a merged lattice of types and and a merged
lattice of relations. For my purposes, this is where I seem to be getting
value. Theory boundaries seem to me to be more arbitrary and less useful stuff
with which to integrate databases. I'm still not sure if we actually differ on
this point. I'm suspecting that we agree. (05)
Best, (06)
-Eric Peterson (07)
________________________________ (08)
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of John F. Sowa
Sent: Tue 5/16/2006 12:12 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Problems of ontology (09)
Eric, (010)
That is essentially what I am recommending: (011)
> I simply need many more definitions than I presently have and
> I find it very cost effective to grab definitions from Cyc. (012)
What I am proposing is a collection of theories organized by
generalization and specialization. (013)
Whenever you grab definitions from Cyc, you create a new theory
that is a subset of the theory from which you grabbed them.
As a subset, that theory is a *contraction* of the original.
Then by *expansion*, you add more axioms to specialize the
theory to the one that is appropriate for your task. Those
are the basic operators of theory revision. (014)
Bundy et al. were also suggesting some operators that were
different from the usual AGM operators of adding and deleting
axioms. They also modified the representation by changing
the signature of various predicates (i.e., changing the
number and types of the arguments they expect). Those
are important, and they can also be interpreted as moving
from one theory to another in the lattice of theories. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
<<winmail.dat>>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|