Re: SUO: SUO-ML and SUO Namespaces: Towards breaking the monolith ...
Additional wrinkle: add the ontology module's KR language, logic,
author, date (creation, update), description. Some of these are Dublin
Core like, i.e., "product metadata" but applied to ontology modules.
Leo Obrst wrote:
>
> ...or, What to do until the future arrives (IFF, Theory-lattices)
>
> Per my last message, here's a very simple, low-tech proposal: why don't
> we define a set of ontology content metadata, called SUO-ML (for
> SUO-XML, for example), each term of which can define a SUO-NS
> (namespace). These content terms will be ontology subject areas, along
> the lines of: Space-Time, Part-Whole, etc. Ontology builders, if they
> follow the SUO-ML standard, will build their ontologies and identify
> them by SUO-NSs. These content metadata terms will act like the usual
> metadata terms, i.e., they are interpreted mainly (at least initially,
> but eventually not just) by human beings. Then ontologies can be found
> across the Web by searching on SUO-NS<area>, recognizing that there are
> going to be some inconsistencies. When you build an ontology module, if
> you follow the standard, you "tag" your module with the label. This
> approach will help us at least work toward the problem Jim F. has (as do
> we all), and towards modularity and non-monolithicity. Labels are
> notoriously short on semantics, but at least they have some, to a human
> being. If a given SUO-ML category also had a natural language
> description (and of course your ontology under that label also had such
> a NL description), at least human beings would get some of your meaning.
>
> The metadata could even be structured into hierarchies, if desired
> (example: under Space-Time, two branches could be 3D and 4D). Over time
> these could become fairly elaborated (a classification of human
> knowledge? uh, I won't be so grandiose). And eventually when the IFF (or
> comparable facility) matures, we can more easily make the transition to
> a lattice of theories. And of course in the meantime, we have much more
> flexibility. And if you need to split out a distinction, you make your
> case, and it gets incorporated in V2. of the standard. Now obviously not
> all of your concepts/axioms will be in one namespace. But perhaps that's
> a way to begin. Eventually of course it will be a gloriously tangled
> web, but organized via prefixed namespace identifiers?
>
> What do people think? Worth pursuing? I think we could actually agree on
> this simpler classification system in fairly short order, and get it
> implemented.
>
> By the way, I would like to acknowledge the real contribution of Pat
> Cassady and Jim Farrugia to this proposal. Pat had the germ of this idea
> in a series of messages a few months ago. At the time, I pooh-poohed it,
> but I kept thinking about it. (Sorry, Pat!) Then Jim Farrugia's recent
> message prompted more thought.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
> mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
> Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA