RE: Key questions about common upper ontologies
Dear John and Jim,
I am going back to the original question.
> > What are the possibilities of a given enterprise
> > adopting a common upper ontology?
MW: The critical issue is governance. A common ontology
will only be adopted if there is authority to mandate its
use. This is just human nature.
> >
> > 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?
MW: Yes, The autority to mandate it, and an organisation to develop
and implement it is the critical issue.
Also, as John and Pat are pointing out, there are many
levels at which value can be derived, each buiding on the previous
level.
1. Dictionary - a list of famous names with definitions/usages.
2. Subclass/superclass hierarchy of concepts with possibly
multiple names (note: supbtype supertype hierarchies are for
concepts not words/terms - which may represent more than
one concept.
3. Increasing definition of concepts in terms rules that apply to
them expressed in formal terms (DL, FOL, SQL, Z etc.)
I know of noone who is beyond a dictionary level in reality.
The only use I have seen of subclass/superclass is to help navigate
to appropriate concepts (and perhaps define them).
> > 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?
MW: It isn't that hard or that expensive (or at least it needn't
be). It does take discipline, and knowledge of how to construct
an ontology (which relatively few people have, even fewer both
of these).
> >
> > 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?
MW: No. You need one or the other. Either they both need to be mapped
to (or use) a common ontology, or you need to do a one to one
mapping (or some combination of these - where the shared ontology
only gives partial coverage). There is no magic!!! A shared ontology
is simply cheaper as the number of systems to integrate rises.
Matthew West
Business Information Architect - Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk