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

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

Thanks Matthew;

Please see below:

<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.

[ELP] I must not see your original point.  I agree with your two
statements, but I don't see how they bear on the n^2 vs. interchange
ontology hub question.

> 
> > 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.

[ELP] Would you really want a wad of O(n^2) mappings rather than an
interchange ontology with O(n) mappings?

<snip>

> > 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).

[ELP] Then we agree.  

> >
> > > 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. 

"Represent once" is one of my most fervently recited mantras.  You are
advocating duplicative representation of mappings. 

> 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.

[ELP] I claim that the hub model would afford ample opportunity to
improve the upper model in the way that you describe.  

And if you want a second language, the hub is still connected to each of
the twelve other ontologies.  You can take your pick.  The hub, however,
avoids the other exponential hoard of connections between ontologies as
we scale up.  I, strongly feel that not addressing scalability in this
way from the beginning would be a big mistake.


> 
> > 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?

[ELP] Are we discussing ontologies or upper ontologies?

I don't mind having a mapping entity/class in a UO, but that's where it
ends for me.

My threads of SUO hope are both getting pretty threadbare;^)  Every time
we talk about another SUO deliverable, I vacillate between a sense of
futility and of denial.  Do you ever worry about this group taking on
way too much?


<big snip>

[ELP] 
Best,

-Eric