Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: RE: What the marketplace needs from us.



Dear Eric,
 
Perhaps you should take a look at the EPISTLE Core Model. This is an entity-relationship model (so precisely structural in your terms) of some 200 entity types as an upper ontology - starting with thing, supported by a Reference Data Library of some 10,000 concepts, aimed at, but not limited to the Process Industries. This data model is already being standardised by ISO in ISO TC184/SC4 - Industrial Data, as ISO15926 (the data model is part 2). It is currently going through pre-publication checks of the Final Draft International Standard.
 
Some of the draft material is available at:
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ISO15926-2/Index.html
 

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.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
Sent: 28 April 2003 18:48
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: What the marketplace needs from us.

My current role is in advising a particular portion of the US government in where to focus a few of its technological expenditures.  In that capacity, I have been getting to know a vast sea of data sets, tools, and legacy systems.  And I have formed the view that the most crying technological needs happen to be ones with which we ontologists can help:

 

My customer needs to tie together large numbers of structured data sets into one seamless analytical environment.

They need to share that seamless picture with other groups.

They need a robust object model to support such a seamless environment.

 

To that end, I’m not looking for, Horn clauses or free form axioms.  I’m looking for what I call structural axioms.  Structural axioms specify the object-oriented subset of a logical theory – namely entities, type inheritance, other relations, relation argument typing (argxIsa), etc.

 

They need an upper ontology from which to derive our object model.  To me, an upper ontology means chiefly the structural axioms starting with “Thing” and descending the inheritance lattice a relatively small number of levels.  The focus of that ontology is the actual domain entities such as people, events, places, but includes other entities and relations needed to properly specify and utilize the these domain definitions.

 

Please give us the simple structural definitions with which we can model our domains.  Horn clauses are wonderful, but they haven’t yet made much of an impact on the market place since I first encountered them as an undergraduate a couple of decades ago.  And if the marketplace isn’t ready for Horn clauses, it certainly isn’t ready for more sophisticated free-form axioms.

 

In the commercial world, I’ve found the need to be the same.  When Deborah McGuiness helped VerticalNet to set up their ontology group, she advised the same structural subset of logic.  Pat Cassidy and I worked in that ontology group (for Leo Obrst) where we oversaw and helped with the knitting together of multiple product catalogues into one seamless product picture.

 

So I’m suggesting that if we are not focusing on structural axioms we are not giving the marketplace what it really needs or will soon fund seriously. 

 

 

Eric Peterson

Chief Technologist

Harris Corp.