SUO: SUO-ML and SUO Namespaces: Towards breaking the monolith ...
...or, What to do until the future arrives (IFF, Theory-lattices)
Per my last message, here's a very simple, low-tech proposal: why don't
we define a set of ontology content metadata, called SUO-ML (for
SUO-XML, for example), each term of which can define a SUO-NS
(namespace). These content terms will be ontology subject areas, along
the lines of: Space-Time, Part-Whole, etc. Ontology builders, if they
follow the SUO-ML standard, will build their ontologies and identify
them by SUO-NSs. These content metadata terms will act like the usual
metadata terms, i.e., they are interpreted mainly (at least initially,
but eventually not just) by human beings. Then ontologies can be found
across the Web by searching on SUO-NS<area>, recognizing that there are
going to be some inconsistencies. When you build an ontology module, if
you follow the standard, you "tag" your module with the label. This
approach will help us at least work toward the problem Jim F. has (as do
we all), and towards modularity and non-monolithicity. Labels are
notoriously short on semantics, but at least they have some, to a human
being. If a given SUO-ML category also had a natural language
description (and of course your ontology under that label also had such
a NL description), at least human beings would get some of your meaning.
The metadata could even be structured into hierarchies, if desired
(example: under Space-Time, two branches could be 3D and 4D). Over time
these could become fairly elaborated (a classification of human
knowledge? uh, I won't be so grandiose). And eventually when the IFF (or
comparable facility) matures, we can more easily make the transition to
a lattice of theories. And of course in the meantime, we have much more
flexibility. And if you need to split out a distinction, you make your
case, and it gets incorporated in V2. of the standard. Now obviously not
all of your concepts/axioms will be in one namespace. But perhaps that's
a way to begin. Eventually of course it will be a gloriously tangled
web, but organized via prefixed namespace identifiers?
What do people think? Worth pursuing? I think we could actually agree on
this simpler classification system in fairly short order, and get it
implemented.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge the real contribution of Pat
Cassady and Jim Farrugia to this proposal. Pat had the germ of this idea
in a series of messages a few months ago. At the time, I pooh-poohed it,
but I kept thinking about it. (Sorry, Pat!) Then Jim Farrugia's recent
message prompted more thought.
Thanks,
Leo
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA