SUO: Re: CG: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
> Exactly. The word "attribute" is indeed misleading, it is taken from FCA but,
> actually, the way I define it is more akin to a CG relation with the incoming
> arrow (to the relation) coming from the concept, and the outgoing arrow (out
> of the relation) going to the "part" or "quality" tied to the concept.
As long as the destination concept node may have a quantifier and others relations
connected to this concept node (in the same graph or not). Also, don't forget
some syntactic sugar to express the difference between the definition of a necessary
and sufficient relation, necessary relation, sufficient relation, etc.
> The solution that, to me, seems feasible is to look for a match *only* on
> the "leaves" ...
I do not see why you want to reduce your chances of finding some matches.
> I also acknowledge that the "most prominent" attributes or qualities of
> a same and given concept appearing in ontologies with an interest in
> totally different fields may have *nothing* in common.
> This is just an extension of the case above, one or both of the ontology
> owners will have to add some *commonly recognised* attribute to his
> concept definition in order to communicate.
Does this mean that each author of an ontology (and only him/her) will have
to do this difficult manual work (hand-crafting) for all the unmatched concepts
in all the ontologies s/he wants to connect to?
If so, this is a business to business model. Enormous waste of time,
precision, completeness and re-use+retrieval possibilities for everyone.
Compare that with users adding their categories (with or without definitions)
into a shared ontology (with some automated checking and guidance). It is not
more difficult and it is optimal: other users benefit from this
category/connection without having to re-set it themselves.
> > Manual ontology merging is not far better: although humans have the advantage of
> > having a huge background knowledge and the ability to understand informal
> > descriptions, they too make dubious connections or are not able to make
> > connections if they do not have enough information to exploit.
>
> THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this remark!
>
> I have been bitterly arguing with naysayers on the SUO list about feasibility
> of my approach, but it is NO MORE INFEASIBLE than a hand-crafted approach.
Except that humans, especially the authors of the ontologies, have more information
about the meaning of the categories. They can exchange it (this is the inefficient
and short-term way) or, when they see that their categories have been mis-used
(and hence mis-interpreterpreted), they can specialize the definitions of their
categories for these mis-uses to be ruled out. (Hence, there may be the need for
manually or automatically "cloning" the mis-used categories when/before they
are refined; see my ICCS'01 paper for detais: http://webkb.org/doc/papers/iccs01/).
> It will just go at COMPUTER SPEED instead of COMMITTEE SPEED!
Computers won't do anything since they do not have enough information.
Committees may do something, but are indeed inefficient.
The only solution I can see is to permit the users to cooperatively built
a shared ontology/KB, consistent and optimally connected (at least as far as
automatic procedures can detect) and still permit users to disagree with
each other, and above all, permit them not to wait for other users to change
their definitions. That sounds impossible, isn't it? Yet, this is what WebKB-2
permits with a few simple tricks. Details on the WebKB site (www.webkb.org),
or in http://webkb.org/doc/papers/iccs01/
or in http://meganesia.int.gu.edu.au/~phmartin/WebKB/doc/papers/wi02/
Regarding your approach, I think Matthew West asked all the right questions.
I do not think you gave an "OVERLY detailed point". More of such points (and
more detailed, with more examples) are what I guess everyone hopes for.
More importantly, researchers and end-users won't adopt any solution (yours,
mine, ...) unless they have a ready-to-use efficient tool for it. I can only
hope that you will design a tool and that it will be successful.
> Cheers.
>
> -- Jean-Luc Delatre
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing
> - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29
Philippe