[seek-kr-sms] ontology management

[Joseph Goguen]

Ive converted my note to html (so subscripts work), added some details
and clarifications (e.g., about extension maps), and put it on the web, at

    http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~goguen/papers/onto-intgn.html

Further omments are very welcome,

    joseph

Shawn Bowers wrote:

>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> The ideas you discuss in this write-up I think are right on track.
>
> In some sense I've been pushing this notion of a "kernel" for a while
> for seek ... and I think that the notion of measurement and the
> surrounding framework is precisely what that "kernel" should consist
> of.
>
> I have a few points and questions about the write-up.
>
> First, I'm not an ontologist, but when you say "Many of them seem to
> believe in the possiblity of a single unified ontology that attracts
> consensus ...", I wonder if this is really the case. In particular, I
> think that *most* (but perhaps not all) people agree that it is not
> possible to define *the* single unified ontology. It is possible to
> define ontologies with broad scopes, as well as ontologies with narrow
> scopes, but these may not be accepted by anyone as *the* ontology for
> a domain.  However, the reason folks consider creating such
> ontologies, is because even if they are not *the* ontology, they still
> permit something that people can commit to ... like a formal glossary
> of terms.  An ontology, as you say, is just some theory, that may or
> may not (typically not) be completely accurate. But, still can have
> value (and some shimmer of "truth").
>
> In terms of calling an ontology a theory, I think you are in good
> company: Guarino, Wand, and particularly Bunge view ontologies in
> exactly this way -- in fact, to Bunge these are synonyms.  In some of
> his writing, Bunge uses the phrase "asking ontological questions,"
> which are essentially questions that "probe" the theory, to see if
> some fact follows from it (i.e., is entailed, or can be explained by
> the theory), or even to test the theory (sort of QA/QC kind of
> process).
>
> You say: "Such tools can also be used to identify subdomains where
> consensus is most likely to be achievable ..."  This argues for some
> mechanism to rank or denote when some fragment of an ontology is more
> "authoritative" than other parts. I think this notion of
> "authoritativeness" can be (will also be) a crucial aspect in using an
> ontology for reasoning/inference, e.g., in data integration.  It can
> provide some richer context/guidance for applying certain integration
> strategies, or ranking different possible strategies.
>
> I am not sure I understand the notion/definition of "extension." In
> particular, it looks as though given a kernel C of concepts, that the
> extension operator maps concepts of C to concepts of C (i.e., it maps
> concepts of the kernel back into the kernel). (It wasn't clear what
> the "of" meant in C_i of C.) I would have expected that somehow the
> kernel is extended by adding new concepts, related those concepts, and
> possibly at some point in the future either "normalizing" them (i.e.,
> realizing that they map to existing kernel notions), adding them to
> the kernel, or dropping them as being "junk".  Also, how would one
> handle properties or characterstics of concepts (i.e., "extend" or
> "modify" concepts at a finer granularity).
>
> Thanks Joseph for sending out this draft.
>
> -shawn
>
>
>
>
>
> Joseph Goguen wrote:
> > Dear Shawn,
> >
> > At the KR/SMS section of the SEEK AHM, i made some suggestions about
> > this, which i subsequently wrote up and circulated.  Just now, ive put
> > it on my
> > website, at
> >
> >    http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~goguen/papers/onto-intgn.txt
> >
> > It starts off a bit philosophical but i think gets quite practical by
> > the end,
> > and also mentions the supporting theory; i still need to add citations
> > though....
> >
> > We all missed you at the meeting but admired all the work that you have
> > done.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >    joseph
> >
> > Shawn Bowers wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Since I wasn't at the AHM, I'm not sure if any discussion or progress
> >> was made in terms of Kepler/SEEK strategies and infrastructure for
> >> managing ontologies.
> >>
> >> Recently, KOAN2 was released with an impressive list of features.  I
> >> wonder if this is something that we should look at more carefully,
> >> and possibly adopt for Kepler/SEEK.
> >>
> >> http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> -shawn
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Seek-kr-sms mailing list
> >> Seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
> >> 
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
> >>
> >>
>