RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions

["Eric Peterson" <epeterson@CCAAVA.com>]

Thanks Matt;

Please see below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:55 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; Jean-Luc Delatre
> Cc: John F. Sowa; Mike Pool; apease@ks.teknowledge.com; clegg@cyc.com;
> John DeOliveira; Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org;
> semanticweb@yahoogroups.com; Downes, Stephen; cg@cs.uah.edu
> Subject: RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
Re:
> SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
 
<snip>

> > It wouldn't make sense to interoperate in this way with multiple
> > competing ontologies.  You would need n^2 mapping axioms to link n
> > competing axioms for a given definition.  Or you could map all n
> > competing axioms into one interchange axiom, but them you end up
> > creating a single interchange ontology to link your competing
> > ontologies.  One way or another, scalable interoperability is best
> > supported by a single upper ontology.
> >
> > It's really that simple.
> 
> MW: Well not really. All the systems out there also use different
> flavours of (usually implicit) ontology. So you have quite complex
> mappings to manage, many of which will be essentially duplicates
> of each other.

[ELP] Mappings, I claim, are irrelevant.  But I rather map into one
ontology than 12.  The charter says that we support interoperability.
How do you suggest that we support mapping without a single knowledge
interchange format (pronounced ontology).


I believe in altruism, but even if I thought that it was remotely our
responsibility to map the world into our ontology, it would view it as
being one of the many things we don't have time to even contemplate
doing as a standards group.  We can't be all things to all people.  At
VerticalNet, one of our ontology support groups wrote software to map
relational DB's into our ontology.  If a commercial endeavour was that
eager to do a so much serious mapping work, why should we as a standards
group be so eager to take it on gratis.  Folks will pay us well to do
it.

> On the other hand, if you cater for the major flavours
> of ontology and map between them once, you greatly simplify the
> mapping process for those wishing to integrate, and do the hardest
> parts for them.

[ELP]  How is n^2 mappings per axiom simple?  And this group producing
mappings as required product is completely outside of the charter:

http://suo.ieee.org/scopeAndPurpose.html
"3) The SUO will play the role of a neutral interchange format whereby
owners of existing applications will be able to map existing data
elements just once to a common ontology."

The **users** do the mapping.  And notice the term "common ontology".
It's singular.

> In addition, because this is done in a "standard"
> way, you avoid the risks of mismapping that would follow from
> many source models having to do more complex mappings.

[ELP] Even if we had the time to think about doing this, I, personally,
rather have a company do it for me.  

<snip>
 

> > [ELP] John has been talking the "merging" talk recently.  He
> > agreed with
> > my motion to state that merging into one ontology is the
> > goal.  He even
> > called it a "restatement" of the charter.
> 
> MW: Personally I am comfortable that contains different world views
> AND the mappings between them is ONE ontology.

[ELP] Yea, and I'm comfortable with the Hell's Angels being called one
biker ;^)

Only if it is just
> a bag of assorted disconnected stuff do I think your criticisms
> apply. I would agree with you that this would not be a useful
> outcome.

[ELP] Your countryman Newton is rolling over in his grave.  He had a big
problem calling three things one at Trinity College, Cambridge ;^)

> <snip>