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

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Dear Eric,

See comments below.


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
> Sent: 11 June 2003 18:50
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; 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
> 
> 
> 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.  

MW: I don't see how.

> But I rather map into one
> ontology than 12.  

MW: But you would only have to map into one - other views would already
be mapped.

> The charter says that we support interoperability.
> How do you suggest that we support mapping without a single knowledge
> interchange format (pronounced ontology).

MW: If the ontologies are integrated, you do support interoperability.
> 
> 
> 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.

MW: Our role is to provide the environment and foundation (read upper
ontology) so that people can do it for themselves (or pay others to).
> 
> > 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?  

MW: It doesn't have to be that bad, and when n is small (2-4) does not
present a major problem. It is even likely that it will improve the
quality. Usually, ISO standards have to be written in at least 2 
languages. The reason for this is that in doing the translation,
linguistic perspectives that represent ambiguity are uncovered.

> And this group producing
> mappings as required product is completely outside of the charter:

MW: Where does it say "thou shalt not do mappings?" A mapping is really
just another word for implication. Are you saying our ontology cannot
have implications in it?
> 
> 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."

MW: That would still be true.
> 
> The **users** do the mapping.  And notice the term "common ontology".
> It's singular.

MW: Doesn't say what is in the ontology. And what ever it is users
would still have to map to it.
> 
> > 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.  

MW: Your choice.
> 
> <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>
>