SUO: Re: Latest Version of Merged Ontology
Ian,
Since I am an advocate for a building blocks approach to ontology
construction, and understand that the mortar between the blocks must be
strong and resilient in order to adequately support the building, I would
like to request that we spell out very clearly how the component ontologies
-- in this case Sowa's upper ontology, Russell and Norvig's ontology, Casati
and Varzi's theory of holes, Allen's temporal axioms, the relatively
noncontroversial elements of Smith's and Guarino's respective
mereotopologies, the KIF formalization of the Core Plan Representation, a
Simple-Time ontology, a Standard-Units ontology, an Agents ontology, the
Numbers ontology (from the Ontolingua server), and the Natural-Kinds and
Positions ontology (authored by the Ontology Group at ITBM-CRN), but in
general any ontologies --
are put together. You mention the two operations or steps of (1) merging and
(2) alignment. In order that everyone comprehends what is involved here, can
we give these an explicit and detailed explanation with illustrious
examples? And are there other hidden and/or useful operations for building a
composite ontology?
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Niles" <iniles@teknowledge.com>
To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: SUO: Latest Version of Merged Ontology
> Hi All,
>
> It's attached. This version incorporates innumerable minor
> corrections, but the biggest differences between it and the version I sent
> out three weeks ago are as follows:
>
> 1. Incorporates six new ontologies, viz. Simple-Time, Standard-Units,
> Agents, and Numbers (from the Ontolingua server), and Natural-Kinds and
> Positions (authored by the Ontology Group at ITBM-CRN). The original
forms
> of all of these ontologies can be accessed from the SUO Candidate Content
> page (http://ltsc.ieee.org/suo/refs.html).
>
> 2. The temporal axioms have been heavily revised on the basis of Pat
Hayes'
> comments.
>
> 3. The subhierarchy of high-level concepts (borrowed from John Sowa) has
> been simplified in an attempt to eliminate concepts that are of purely
> philosophical interest. This is a work in progress, and it was prompted
by
> both Pat Hayes and Chris Menzel.
>
> 4. The case role portion of the ontology (also borrowed from John Sowa)
has
> also been simplified.
>
> I'd like to extend a special thanks to Pat Hayes and Chris Menzel
> for their detailed, helpful, and challenging remarks on the previous
version
> of the merged ontology, and I'd like to encourage everyone to comment on
the
> new version. Let me know if anyone has any difficulty viewing the
attached
> file.
>
> -Ian
>
>
>
>