Key questions about common upper ontologies
After a discussion in another forum, Jim Schoening
raised the following questions, which address the
requirements for upper ontologies and the likelihood
that any proposed ontology is going to be adopted
and used successfully.
> What are the possibilities of a given enterprise
> adopting a common upper ontology?
>
> Or for a longer version of the question: Would it
> be desireable and feasible for a large and diverse
> organization (with many domains), with a compelling
> need for data and semantic interoperability, to adopt
> or develop a common upper ontology, plus multiple
> domain ontologies, and to eventually mandate it within
> the enterprise for those systems requiring interoperability?
> It would be mandated for drafting consistent requirements,
> developing data models, etc. Assume, of course, this
> will be very difficult, will take a long time, and cost
> mega bucks, but is it feasible and desireable?
>
> Second question: If this can't be done, is there any other
> means of achieving semantic interoperability? Could a system
> from one domain share data or do inferencing with a system
> from another domain without them both complying with a
> common upper ontology, and without a one-to-one mapping?
I believe that these really are key questions that get
to the heart of what we are supposed to be doing in the
SUO Working Group. If this is to be anything more than
a philosophical discussion group, we have to address
these issues and produce some deliverables that can
support people who have such problems. But what kind
of deliverabes should we produce?
I have some thoughts about these topics, but rather than
bias the discussion by including my own suggestions in the
same note, I'd like to let people think about the questions
before we start to tackle them.
John Sowa