SUO: RE: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
Dear Jean-Luc,
My interpretation of what you are proposing is that some set of
independently developed ontologies can be integrated through some
automated process.
If you can explain how that would work I would be very interested,
because I don't know how to do that.
How do you propose that a broker would match concepts in one ontology
to concepts in another ontology?
Take a really simple example. Suppose you have one ontology that
does mereology based on a spatio-temporal ontology. How do you know
(=find out) that you can't mix that with another ontology that uses
continuants as its underlying paradigm of persistence?
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: Jean-Luc Delatre [mailto:jld@club-internet.fr]
> Sent: 10 April 2002 10:03
> To: cg@cs.uah.edu
> Cc: phmartin@meganesia.int.gu.edu.au; Stand Up Ontology; John F. Sowa
> Subject: SUO: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
>
>
>
> Answering a message from John Sowa:
>
> http://mars.virtual-earth.de/pipermail/cg/2002q2/000000.html
>
> Philippe Martin wrote :
> >
> > > A blackboard is an ideal platform for supporting hot-swap
> or plug-n-play
> > > components. When a new component is added to the FMF, it
> would send
> > > a message to the blackboard to identify itself and the patterns of
> > > messages it accepts. ...
> > > Any server anywhere on the Internet could be converted to
> an intelligent
> > > agent by using an FMF as its front end. ...
> >
> > What is the main difference between this "blackboard" and
> knowledge-based
> > Web brokers such as the CG-based AI-trader (see the
> proceedings of ICCS'95 or
> >
> http://www.vsb.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/projects/aitrader/i
> ntro.html),
> > the OKBC-based or KQML-based brokers described on the
> Ontolingua site,
> > or the prototype for distributed KBs discussed on the CYC site
> > (http://www.cyc.com/applications.html#dai) ?
> >
> > Knowledge-based Web brokers are ontology/KB servers which,
> when necessary,
> > redirect queries to others ontology/KB/DB servers.
> Integrating the results
> > is an unsolved (and in my opinion unsolvable) problem if
> the ontologies of
> > the various systems are not tightly interconnected.
>
> "tightly interconnected", yes of course, but what does this means?
>
> It does NOT has to mean that each one has to recode ALL the knowledge
> from others in order to meaningfully exchange information.
>
> I have been arguing vehemently since Fri 22 Mar 2002 that
> *incrementality*
> should be considered for ontologies interoperability:
>
> http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08138.html
>
> I got some critiscisms and nit-picking:
>
> mumble, mumble, not gonna be easy:
> "can't think offhand how one might implement such a system"
>
> don't ask me to think:
> "it is too technical for seweb which is more meant for
> general annoucements."
>
> you don't know what you are talking about:
> "You might also consult the definition of 'higher-order'
> in some standard logic text."
>
> we have no interest beside our (strictly defined) turf:
> "It would be better to have a silent list (with hope for
> future progress) than an off-topic list"
>
> Etc...
>
> But NO ONE made any comment pro or con *incrementality* per se!
>
> > However, if each (general
> > or specialized) KB server mirrors the content of its
> competitors (manually
> > at first, then more and more automatically), the competing servers
> > will end up with comparable ontologies/knowledge, and then
> the processes of
> > redirecting queries and integrating results are simpler. Actually,
> > if each server manages to include/mirror the knowledge of
> its competitors,
> > the need for a broker is quite reduced: all competing
> servers will answer
> > similarly. That would also be more efficient: large
> ontologies/KB can be
> > handled efficiently but can an application exploiting many
> distributed KB
> > servers be efficient?
>
> Certainly not if this amount to a bulk replication of *all*
> participating
> ontologies!
>
> > I assume that most ontology/KB servers (e.g. WebKB-2,
> Ontolingua, Ontosausus,
> > Ontobroker) could easily include a (very) simple broker, if
> this is required.
>
> Simplicity of the broker is a well desirable property but scalability
> over a very large distributed set of knowledge repositories might
> dictate otherwise.
>
> But this is *not* necessarily unavoidable.
> What if the broker could be both simple and scalable?
> It's all in the design and incrementality might do it!
>
> Anyone to REALLY comment on that?
> Rather than on appropriateness in the form of the question or
> the subject matter or my credentials, etc...
>
> Cheers.
>
> -- Jean-Luc Delatre
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "There is no more common error than to assume that, because
> prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been
> made, the application of the result to some fact of nature
> is absolutely certain." - A. N. Whitehead
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29
>