Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and the SUO

Gary Berg-Cross wrote:

> One this discussion of building a lattice from studying word sets, such as
>
> > Actually, I've started work on a prototype lattice that uses
> WordNet's noun
> > classes.  So far, I have a first order Q&A function to move from one
> node
> > in the lattice to another.  I think the same thing is needed for the
> verbs,
> > but haven't gotten that far.
>
> Doesn' the work on "Formal Concept Analysis " (FCA) at
> Karlsruhe build concept lattices something like this? For exaple
> Philipp Cimiano, Steffen Staab, & Julien Tane tested an assumption that :
>
> "verbs pose strong selectional restrictions which could be used to
> build a conceptual hierarchy on the basis of the inclusion relations
> between the extensions of the selectional restrictions of all the
> verbs. Tthe verbs themselves provide   intensional descriptions for
> each concept  (in "Deriving Concept Hierarchies from Text by Smooth
> Formal Concept Analysis"). They have a small concept lattice example
> in the paper.
>
> I've also seen discussion of mathematical structures related to FCA
> (e.g. concept lattices, Galois connections, closure structures,
> attribute implications) that seems to be something worth considering
> here if people are building applications.
>
Hi Gary,

Could you provide references (preferably Web pointers) to the discussions of
mathematical structures you mention?  I haven't gotten around to
studying FCA
in detail, but I am interested in relating Galois connections to the
informorphisms
of Barwise & Seligman, also used in Robert Kent's Information Flow
Framework
that is one of our starter documents for an SUO.

Part of IFF's emphasis is on coming up with meta-ontologies where mapping
between inconsistent models is possible in a principled way. The work of
Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer, working on the mapping and merging of "populated
ontologies" may provide a relevant technique.

*/"IF-Map: an ontology mapping method based on Information Flow theory"/*
/*Y.Kalfoglou*/, M.Schorlemmer.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~yk1/ifmap-jds03.pdf

*/"Ontology mapping: the state of the art"/*
/*Y.Kalfoglou*/, M.Schorlemmer
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~yk1/kalfoglou_schorlemmer_ontomapKER03.pdf


Cheers,

Fred

Frederick Kintanar
NEC Telecom Software Philippines
Cebu City

> **Regards,
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* owner-standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org on behalf
>     of Rob Freeman
>     *Sent:* Tue 3/22/2005 9:52 PM
>     *To:* John F. Sowa
>     *Cc:* cassidy@MICRA.COM; West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321; SUO WG;
>     cg@CS.UAH.EDU
>     *Subject:* Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and
>     the SUO
>
>     John,
>
>     On Tuesday 22 March 2005 23:14, John F. Sowa wrote:
>     >
>     > Before spammers started to play games with it,
>     > Google's page-rank algorithm was the best guide
>     > to finding useful sites among the trash.  Some such
>     > techniques can be adapted to any method for storing
>     > and retrieving data, including the lattice.  You
>     > can add metadata to each theory that says who's
>     > using it, for what purpose, and with what success.
>
>     Seeking meaning in a pattern in the connections of your lattice,
>     like Google's
>     page-rank algorithm, which seeks meaning in the pattern of connections
>     between pages on the Web.
>
>     Yes, that's nice.
>
>     Seeking patterns in use would be one strategy. Another would be to
>     seek
>     patterns in response to a query.
>
>     Which takes me to Rich's initiative.
>
>     On Tuesday 22 March 2005 23:32, Rich Cooper wrote:
>     >
>     > Actually, I've started work on a prototype lattice that uses
>     WordNet's noun
>     > classes.  So far, I have a first order Q&A function to move from
>     one node
>     > in the lattice to another.  I think the same thing is needed for
>     the verbs,
>     > but haven't gotten that far.
>
>     Rich. Why use WordNet? Why not use words? That way you can handle
>     your query
>     "natively".
>
>     As you seek paths from word-to-word you will travel node-to-node,
>     and describe
>     a pattern in your lattice, which can be interpreted meaningfully a
>     bit like
>     the patterns of Google's page-rank algorithm, as John suggests.
>
>     -Rob
>