SUO: RE: Re: Web-based ontology browsers
Dear Robert,
I strongly agree with Seth on this. Indeed it was a major reason
for my "no" vote.
> ...I think
> that if IFF is supposed to be a method for growing
> ontologies, and if we
> want it to become widely used, then the methods need to be
> accessible to
> those of us who don't want to spend years digesting category
> theory. I
> think we need IFF translated into natural language understanding. The
> natural language in your paper was quite understandable, and even
> inspirational ... yet when you got to the point of 'how to
> make it work' it
> became inaccessible
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> Sent: 03 September 2001 19:49
> To: Robert E. Kent
> Cc: Philip Jackson; SUO
> Subject: SUO: Re: Web-based ontology browsers
>
>
>
> From: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
>
> > > (1) Does my diagram below accurately express the definition of
> > infomorphism
> > > as you described it in section 2 of your paper The
> Information Flow
> > > Foundation for Conceptual Knowledge Organization?
> > >
> > > http://robustai.net/mentography/infoMorphism.gif
> >
> > Probably not. An infomorphism has four components: two
> classifications and
> > two functions. As expressed by the KIF axioms, there are typing
> constraints
> > and a constraint called the fundamental property of infomorphisms.
> >
> > > (2) Will we not still need to *manually* develop the
> assertions for the
> > > mappings f and g in my diagram?
> >
> > I do not think the diagram represents the infomorphism concept.
>
> Forget about the diagram, do the two mappings you refer to as
> 'f' and 'g'
> need to be manually entered ??
>
> >In the IFF
> > Foundation Ontology the axioms for infomorphisms are
> complete (not meant
> > logically, but intuitively).
>
> What do you mean by 'not meant logically, but intuitively' ?
>
> > > (3) Are we expected to be able to input two consistent
> ontologies and
> > > produce a third consistent ontology somehow by inputting
> these axioms to
> > > some tool that exists today ?
> >
> > That was being discussed yesterday in a different thread
> > [http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg06373.html].
>
> I know. But I still would like to hear the answer to my question.
>
> > > I am having troubles understanding the level of
> abstraction of your
> > papers.
> >
> > It is fairly high -- after all, it is category theory (see
> > [http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/categories.html]).
>
> Category theory doesn't scare me per se (i have always
> suspected that the
> diagrams I have been drawing for the past 20 years are really
> expressing the
> same things that are expressed by category theory diagrams).
> But I think
> that if IFF is supposed to be a method for growing
> ontologies, and if we
> want it to become widely used, then the methods need to be
> accessible to
> those of us who don't want to spend years digesting category
> theory. I
> think we need IFF translated into natural language understanding. The
> natural language in your paper was quite understandable, and even
> inspirational ... yet when you got to the point of 'how to
> make it work' it
> became inaccessible
>
> Seth Russell
>
>