|
Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:20 PM, Gian Piero
Zarri wrote,
''... given the conceptual differences among the "upper
levels" of models like DOLCE, CYC, Conceptual Graphs, SUMO, NKRL etc., the
search for a Standard Upper Ontology seems to me like the search for some sort
of ontological Holy Graal.''
This doesn't make an argument. Try and find better
one.
Jim, I think the SUO WG should preclude any involvement
with the U.S. department of Defence as well as any other DODs. It must
be nobler way to get funding.
regards,
azamat abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:20
PM
Subject: Re: U.S. DoD WG expresses
interest in upper ontologies
Dear Jim,
I think that my position on the
subject is known: given the conceptual differences among the "upper levels" of
models like DOLCE, CYC, Conceptual Graphs, SUMO, NKRL etc., the search for a
Standard Upper Ontology seems to me like the search for some sort of
ontological Holy Graal. I have devoted a whole Section to this topic in my
forthcoming book on "Representation and Management of Narrative Information"
(July 2008: some preliminary information about the book can be found on the
Springer site: www.springer.com/computer/artificial/book/978-1-84800-077-3).
If
the search for a SUO is, in my opinion, a false problem - let the market make
the difference - a real ontological problem concerns, again according to me,
the insufficiency of the present W3C tools (RDF(S), OWL) to represent and
manage correctly many important "dynamic" situations like those described in
"narrative" documents as the news stories, the medical records, many
intelligence messages, the actuality photos etc. Note that a majority of the
ontological gurus are perfectly aware of this but there exists, apparently, a
sort of "psychological subjection" to the options defended by the W3C and by
some EC mediocrities hidden behind the Luxembourg's hills: these suggest to
search the solutions to this sort of problems within the present (W3C)
paradigm and not outside it. But this is, of course, another
matter...
Best regards,
Gian Piero
ZARRI
Schoening,
James R Mr CIV USA AMC a écrit :
95EA9EACA466CF40AD26E3CD8987925901D2E03A@MONMBE010C85207.nae.ds.army.mil
type="cite">All,
The U.S. DoD Ucore WG is exploring upper ontologies and is
interested in the pros/cons of those that exist. Their interest is
posted at http://data.army.mil/universal_core_wg.html and inserted
below.
SUO WG started an evaluation some years ago, which is still
posted at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/, but it needs better
structure and more evaluation inputs.
If U.S. DoD were to select and start using an upper ontology,
this could create market momentum that could spill over into private
industry and lead to a global standard. Some might view this as good,
and others will be opposed, which is all fine. Those who would like in
influence any such selection should participate in this evaluation.
This evaluation should not just be for this potential user, but for any
and all potential users.
I should explain my role in this. I'm now working in the U.S.
Army's Net-Centric Data Strategy Center of Excellence. I was not the
person to suggest DoD Ucore WG make use of an upper ontology, but I
suggested they ask industry groups for evaluations of available upper
ontologies, and I offered to have my office host the public web site for
this announcement. I will not have much time to participate in this
evaluation, but I'm trying to encourage some young ontology developers
in my office to get involved. So, this is up to the members of this
group who see the opportunity in this statement of interest.
This is repeating myself, but should be restated: This group
does not currently have an official chair or other leaders. I've
suggested all along we wait until we have some real activities before
electing leaders, so if this creates greater activity, it may be time to
set up a leadership structure and elect leaders.
Jim Schoening
=========================================================
Below is text of statement posted at
http://data.army.mil/universal_core_wg.html
=========================================================
U.S. Department of Defense
Universal Core (UCore) Working Group
Statement of Interest in Upper Ontologies
The DoD Universal Core Working Group is exploring the use of an upper
ontology in conjunction with its Universal Core (UCore) data model. We
are interested in the advantages and disadvantages of each available
upper ontology, and we suspect other projects may also be interested.
Additional information can be found by searching on "Universal Core"
+DoD.
Groups and individuals with expertise in this field are invited to
conduct and share their analysis of available upper ontologies.
We are not requesting a recommendation, but rather an analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of available upper ontologies.
We encourage interested groups and individuals to publicly post their
analysis and to provide a link to this page so all can share in the
results.
Links to Groups
Links to Individuals
Links to Papers and Studies
Links to Forums & Blogs
This page is provided by the U.S. Army CIO/G-6 Net-Centric Data Strategy
Branch in support of the DoD UCore Working Group.
Website Disclaimer | Privacy and Security | Accessibility Statement
|