RE: SUO: RE: Comment #7 - Reference Object''
Dear Adam,
Precisely, if there are many API's, then you will not be able to pass
information between the different ones. This is why a standard one is
useful. I agree that at a conceptual level the content of the SUO is not
affected by the detail of an API. But if you do not have a standard way of
accessing and using it, you only have something that is intellectually
satisfying, and not actually useful.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Asset Information Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apease [mailto:apease@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 16 September 2000 19:07
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I;
> 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail) '
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Comment #7 - Reference Object''
>
>
> Matthew,
> I agree that an API for ontologies is useful. I'd simply
> say that there
> could be many that would be able to pass around statements
> that conform to
> the SUO and that definition of the API, although useful, does
> not affect
> the SUO.
>
> Adam
>
> At 08:34 PM 9/15/2000 +0200, West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
>
> >Dear Adam,
> >
> >The primary reason for specifying an API for the ontology is so that
> >different ontology based systems can communicate with each
> other. This is
> >particularly pertinent when you think that this is also a
> purpose of the
> >ontology itself.
> >
> >Regards
> > Matthew
> >============================================
> >Matthew West
> >Asset Information Management
> >Shell Services International
> >H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> >Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> >E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> >http://www.shellservices.com/
> >============================================
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: apease [mailto:apease@teknowledge.com]
> > > Sent: 15 September 2000 01:25
> > > To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; 'Standard-Upper-Ontology
> > > (E-mail) '
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Comment #7 - Reference Object''
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > > I'm a little puzzled as to why we'd be addressing APIs.
> > > Many APIs could
> > > be defined to support the SUO - OKBC, the Cyc interface etc.
> > > However,
> > > we're standardizing the content of the SUO not the programs
> > > which may use
> > > or access it.
> > > The notion of a reference object is meaningful for a software
> > > architecture where the architecture is just a guideline
> or where many
> > > different instances of the system described by the
> > > architecture could be
> > > created. The reference object is just a particular
> > > implementation which
> > > conforms to the standard.
> > > However, the SUO is a detailed content standard. While
> > > one could map
> > > the standard to different languages, the semantics would have
> > > to be the
> > > same to embody the standard. So, I'm unclear how an
> > > 'implementation' of
> > > the SUO would differ in semantics from a 'reference' SUO.
> > > Since it's the
> > > semantics we care about, I'd submit that such an
> > > implementation simply
> > > wouldn't conform to the standard.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > At 07:02 PM 9/13/2000 -0400, Schoening, James R CECOM
> DCSC4I wrote:
> > >
> > > >Lee,
> > > >
> > > > When you refer to a 'reference object,' would an API
> > > be such an
> > > >example, such as what Bob Spillers posted on May 23rd,
> when he wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >An application programmers' interface (API) must be
> > > created that will
> > > >support both standard
> > > > >functionality and new functionality required by future
> > > applications.
> > > >Information access and
> > > > > update must be provided not only for first-order
> > > knowledge, but also for
> > > >higher-order, modal
> > > > >, non-monotonic, probabilistic and fuzzy inferences. The
> > > API should be able
> > > >to support efficie
> > > > >nt scheduling for distributed querying, indirect queries
> > > launched through a
> > > >superordinate ontol
> > > > >ogy (the RO), or through subordinate (but conformant)
> > > domain ontologies.
> > > >Both the syntax and
> > > > > semantics of the API should rest on fully developed,
> > > mathematically
> > > >rigorous foundations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >I agree an API will be needed for some types of
> > > applications, but wouldn't
> > > >there be other applications that utilize SUO in ways that a
> > > single reference
> > > >object might not support? If so, what good is a reference
> > > object if it
> > > >doesn't cover all applications.
> > > >
> > > >Also, if there were just one reference object, what would
> > > the de facto
> > > >standard be, the paper standard or the reference object?
> > > >
> > > >Also, why just one reference object or API? Wouldn't a
> > > well-written paper
> > > >standard, with good conformance tests(not part of the
> > > standard), allow many
> > > >different implementations to interoperate without a reference
> > > >implementation? The conformance tests don't even need to be
> > > developed by the
> > > >same company, provided the standard is clear.
> > > >
> > > >Jim Schoening
> > > >(Responding as a participant, not as Chair)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > > >[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 23:33
> > > >To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail) '
> > > >Subject: SUO: Comment #7 - Reference Object''
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >SUO,
> > > > Let's now discuss the comment from Lee Austpitz
> > > lee@textwise.com on
> > > >'Reference Object'.
> > > >
> > > >Lee comments:
> > > > >The vision of a single document, with or without an annex,
> > > raises the
> > > >question of what exactly is being "standardized".
> > > > >The distinction, crucial to this area, between a reference
> > > object and the
> > > >standards that it exemplifies is absent
> > > > >from the Statements of Scope and Purpose.
> > > >
> > > >Comments on this comment?
> > > >
> > > >Jim Schoening
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >==============================================================
> > > >
> > > >The original Scope and Purpose is as follows:
> > > >
> > > >Scope of Proposed Project:
> > > >(The Scope describes what is being done, including the
> > > technical boundaries
> > > >of the project.)
> > > >This standard will specify the syntax and semantics of a
> > > general-purpose
> > > >upper level ontology. An ontology is a set of terms and
> > > formal definitions.
> > > >This will be limited to the upper level, which provides
> > > definition for
> > > >general-purpose terms and provides a structure for compliant
> > > lower level
> > > >domain ontologies. It is estimated to contain between 1000
> > > and 2500 terms
> > > >plus roughly ten definitional statements for each term. It
> > > is intended to
> > > >provide the foundation for ontologies of much larger size
> > > and more specific
> > > >scope.
> > > >
> > > >Purpose of Proposed Project:
> > > >(The Purpose describes why the standard needs to be
> > > developed and who will
> > > >benefit.)
> > > >* The standard will be suitable for automated logical
> > > inference to
> > > >support knowledge-based reasoning applications.
> > > >* This standard will enable the development of a large
> > > (20,000+)
> > > >general-purpose standard ontology of common concepts to be
> > > developed, which
> > > >will provide the basis for middle-level domain ontologies
> > > and lower-level
> > > >application ontologies.
> > > >* The ontology will be suitable for "compilation" to
> > > more restricted
> > > >forms such as XML or database schema. This will enable
> > > database developers
> > > >to define new data elements in terms of a common ontology,
> > > and thereby gain
> > > >some degree of interoperability with other compliant systems.
> > > >* Owners of existing systems will be able to map
> existing data
> > > >elements just once to a common ontology, and thereby
> gain a degree of
> > > >interoperability with other representations that are
> > > compliant with the SUO.
> > > >
> > > >* Domain-specific ontologies which are compliant with
> > > the SUO will be
> > > >able to interoperate (to some degree) by virtue of the
> > > shared common terms
> > > >and definitions.
> > > >* Applications of the ontology will include:
> > > >* E-commerce applications from different domains
> > > which need to
> > > >interoperate at both the data and semantic levels.
> > > >* Educational applications in which students
> > > learn concepts and
> > > >relationships directly from, or expressed in terms of, a
> > > common ontology.
> > > >This will also enable a standard record of learning to be kept.
> > > >* Natural language understanding tasks in which a
> > > knowledge based
> > > >reasoning system uses the ontology to disambiguate among likely
> > > >interpretations of natural language statements.
> > > >
> > > >===============
> > > >
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > Adam Pease
> > > Teknowledge
> > > (650) 424-0500 x571
> > >
> > >
>
> -----------------
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>
>