Re: Some references about ontology and analogy: SUO redux
Pat,
Re reference: I'm sorry. I always check that the files
are on my web site before I make a reference to them, but
instead of doing a cut and paste of the URL, I made the
mistake of retyping it with ".htm" instead of ".pdf".
As several people have noted, it should be
http://www.jfsowa.com/ai/gcprop.pdf
I also agree with your suggestion:
PC> I just want to get on with the task of building the best
> upper ontology that the best minds can devise in the present
> state of our art, keep modifying it as experience reveals
> its inadequacies, and in the interim use it as a tool that
> will help us make progress on the other issues that you
> have eloquently pointed out, by improving the reusability
> of the results of our investigations.
My main concern is with the question of what to standardize.
The best minds of the past two millennium haven't reached an
agreement on a good upper ontology, and after spending $70
million on putting some very good minds to work on the problem,
the Cyc project still doesn't have a version we would be happy
to standardize.
Below are copies of two recent notes to SUO list that make
useful suggestions. The first is a note from me in response
to some comments by Jim Schoening about the poor quality of
some current ontology projects. In it, I make the following
suggestion:
... that we address the problem of working on a document
about principles for developing and defining ontologies.
The second note, from Jim Schoening, suggests that we
Demonstrate how a hierarchy of a single upper, multiple
domain, and multiple sub-domain ontologies will enable some
useful level of queries and inferencing across domains.
These suggestions are less ambitious than producing a complete
upper ontology, but they can be achieved in a reasonable
amount of time, they would be useful in themselves, and they
would facilitate the production of an upper ontology, if and
when the SUO group can get the resources to do so.
John Sowa
_______________________________________________________________
From: John F. Sowa
Date: 11/24/04
Jim,
I have heard some comments along the same lines:
> At my employer (US Government), I'm finding more and
> more ontology projects, but I have to wonder about
> the quality and value of them. Some start with
> taxonomies and add some basic OWL relationships.
> Others appear to take abstract/complex terms (found
> in enterprise architectures) and add relationships.
> Others are such quick efforts, one has to wonder.
> Others are developed with little or no background or
> experience in ontology development. Most projects
> appear to be starting with terms, not concepts.
Some of us have been criticizing ontologies done by
professionals. If we find problems in those, you can
imagine what kinds of disgusting flora and fauna lurk
in the ones done by amateurs.
That's why I suggested that we address the problem of
working on a document about principles for developing
and defining ontologies. I think that could be a
document that we could agree to more quickly than
a complete upper ontology, and it would be very
welcome for a very wide audience.
Without such a document, the remains of the flora and
fauna buried in those so-called ontologies are going
to smell real bad, real soon. And it will stink up
the whole field.
John Sowa
_____________________________________________________________
From: James.Schoening@us.army.mil
Date: 12/10/04
SUO WG,
I think it's fair to say the concept of a 'standard upper ontology'
needs some technology demonstrations, probably of multiple technical
issues.
This thread asks "What needs to be demonstrated in a SUO?" and "What
is the current state-of-the-art (i.e. papers, other demos) such a demo
would build on?"
Let's try to keep away from which candidate upper ontology might be
best. I'd like to see given tech demos try several candidates.
I'll seed this thread with one issue:
ISSUE: Demonstrate how a hierarchy of a single upper, multiple domain,
and multiple sub-domain ontologies will enable some useful level of
queries and inferencing across domains.
Has this capability been demonstrated? Do any papers address it?
Jim Schoening