[seek-kr-sms] ontology management

[Joseph Goguen]

Dear Serguei,

The use of maps is standard in the database community for schemas, for
many good reasons, which are rather well explained in some papers by
Phil Bernstein (and others) on what they call "model management"; one
of the reasons is that everything evolves, the objects (schemas for them,
ontologies for us) and the maps need to evolve with them, to support
data translation, integration, etc.  You can get a good overview at Phil's
website, e.g.,

    http://research.microsoft.com/db/ModelMgt/

There is also a lot in some of my recent papers, but it is much more
technical.

Cheers,

    joseph

Serguei Krivov wrote:

>In our discussions on "owlification" of Taxon I also have been advocating
>this kind of architecture:
>1. One very general ontology acceptable to everybody -call it top or kernel.
>
>2. Large number of small additions made by different people (authorities) --
>these are extensions
>Interestingly, the axioms of equivalence for concepts and individuals and
>other owl constructs would allow to establish local synonyms within an
>extension and do similar things as extension maps: " these maps do not need
>to be inclusions: they might change names, or define new concepts in terms
>of core concepts, possibly even by explicitly denying the validity of
>certain concepts in C...."
>
>Yet, conceptualizing those local ontologies (extensions) as   maps  seems
>new to me and I wonder about possible ramifications of this point of view.
>
>serguei
> 
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: seek-kr-sms-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
>[mailto:seek-kr-sms-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Goguen
>Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:48 PM
>To: Shawn Bowers
>Cc: seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>Subject: Re: [seek-kr-sms] ontology management
>
>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
>>    
>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>_______________________________________________
>Seek-kr-sms mailing list
>Seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
>
>
>  
>