Re: SUO: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:22:00PM -0700, Richard Cooper wrote:
>
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> <snip\>
> > TJ: 1.1. Our goal, I take it, is to increase the semantic
> > interoperability
> > of databases. This means, I take it, (although I
> > have found no
> > description of any such thing on the SUO website)
> > is to create
> > a registration framework for real world databases.
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > There's about 20 years worth of research on "deductive databases"
> > that I can remember just since the first standard textbooks began
> > to appear. But you said bottoms-up, and I'm all for that, well,
> > let me check -- yes, it's an odd-numbered day where I am, so OK.
> >
> > Let us try to approach the question
> > of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO)
> > by way of the following sub-questions:
> >
> > 1. What is the "meaning" of a "set of sentences" (SOS)?
> >
> > 2. What is the "meaning" of a "table of tuples" (TOT)?
> >
> > 3. How shall we compare the "meanings" of these two?
> >
> > I will give you and me both time to think and then get back to you.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
>
> This set of three questions is the most important triple we're
> dealing with in all SUO work. Getting clear answers to how
> meaning is represented, communicated, stored, compared and
> organized would be a successful result.
could you try to expand a bit on this? For instance, how does a table
of tuples compare to a set of sentences?
>
> We have predefined the answer to be an ontology. Then we refined
> that concept to include the lattice of ontologies, plus the IFF
> framework, but I still get the feeling there's a lot of stuff left
> out.
(No here I disagree: once you have answered every question about
meaning the work would be done.)
>
> So I agree with Tom that the focus should be refined further
> to incorporate real world database concepts, and I add one more
> suggestion; that we should be working with natural language
> words and sentences to impose the type structure, or class
> structure, and property lists, of common everyday concepts like
> address, customer, person, ..., fill in your favorite concepts.
what is the alternative to "real world database concepts"? What
sort of choice are we presented with?
> Finally, since we haven't been able to agree on more enhanced
> ontologies than WordNet, perhaps we should start the bottom-up
> process by extracting exactly the ontology that WordNet provides.
> This could be one of the bottom-level concept sets, along with
> others that may appear in the lattice as we continue.
>
> Rich
>
--
- - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
Pierluigi Miraglia Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr.
(512) 514-2988 Austin, TX 78731