Re: SUO: should a standard specify...
Hi Jim,
Quoting from you: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08344.html
I don't have much more to argue about this
except for some misunderstandings.
So, there is a lot of silent snipping.
> JF: I agree that the meaning won't come from, say, an ID. And I agree
> that the lack of content could in some cases be an issue. But even
> if lack of content is one of the issues here, it is not the main one
> that I am trying to address, which is: how to make available to programs
> the ontological guts (including language elements, axioms, model theory,
> "content", etc.) of ontologies, so that users or programs stand a chance
> of being able to judge whether two particular ontologies might be
> able to be used together?
According to my view this is a VOID question.
ANY two ontologies based on the *core formalism* should be usable together.
(modulo performance penalty, the inference engine may be grinding endlessly
to map back and forth, say 3D to 4D concepts)
> > * The main difficulties seem to be: (1) how to identify the relevant
> > ontological primitives (e.g., terms, definitions, axioms) used by an ontology;
> > and (2) how to use these primitives to extract a particular domain-related
> > portion of the ontology.
>
> J-L: Why would you want to do (2)?
> If the ontology is there why not just use it?
>
> JF: Overhead and targeted domains. I may want to acquire and evaluate what
> 10 different ontologies say about naive spatial reasoning, without having
> to crunch through the other 95% of what the ontologies say about the world.
> (I realize that it may be difficult to extract "what an ontology says"
> about a particular domain and that one needs a way of determining how to
> delimit a domain.)
VOID again.
I have not made clear enough that the ontology interoperability
is to be "incremental".
You may "borrow" concepts from remote ontologies just as you need them.
This is implicit in the broker logic, you don't even have to state the
dependencies yourself, nor to care about what are the limits of a "domain".
> JF: > * Being able to identify, extract, and manipulate these primitives _seems_
> > key to being able to assess whether two ontologies can interoperate
> > (in virtually any plausible sense of that word). But it may indeed not be
> > appropriate to suppose that one could determine whether two ontologies
> > can interoperate based on accessing the ontological primitives and
> > assertions used by the ontologies to talk about a particular domain.
> > To those who hold this view, can you please elaborate?
>
> J-L: I did partly already, are you sure you read carefully enough and
> extracted all the info available?
>
> JF: If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether I extracted
> from SUMO, Cyc, and ISO15296 all the info relevant to "thing" or "entity"?
No, I meant read *my* proposal.
Get to my home page, there are links gathered to SUO mail archive which
highlight my most significant messages about it, where I DID elaborate.
Best.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."
- A.H. Weiler.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29