Re: [xtm-wg] Common Assumptions

["univers immedia" <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>]

I'm glad this type of question is raised.

The very question is : what in a TM carries ontology, and what are the
processes able to verify the alignment of ontologies before merging ? What
can be system-driven and what needs some sort of human agreement ? This is
a complex and largely open issue, and with certainly no one-for-all
solutions.

Agreement on identity of topic subjects leads us back to the debate about
baseName-based vs subjectIndicator-based merging, and the lack of a general
theory of scope and context. I understand Steve P. is working on that last
one at the moment, and will provide us in Austin with some valuable tracks
to explore.
Agreement on identity of [meaning of] associations and roles is a more
tricky but crucial issue, not really addressed so far, and maybe linked
with the other debate on reification, since the identification/merging
process of two associations maybe needs a proper identification/merging
process of the topics that reify them ...

Anyway all that confirms that TM technology development will be of limited
use without coordinated development of public ontologies strongly grounded
in (stable) PSI.

Bernard

----- Message d'origine -----
De : Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
À : <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé : lundi 29 janvier 2001 07:30
Objet : [xtm-wg] Common Assumptions [Was: analysis of the meaning of
ontology]


> Paul Prueitt wrote:
> >
> > The Waterson and Preece paper is at:
> >
> >  http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~apreece/Pubs/kbsj99b.html
> [...]
>
> To step away from this discussion a bit, but glean an important point
> for Topic Maps from the above discussion/paper: that the act of merging
> two or more topic maps requires (at least at a semantic level) that
> there be some fundamental agreement between the sources prior to merging.
> I think the Waterson and Preece paper does provide some valuable insights
> that may also be applied in our domain, vis:
>
>   "In order for two or more knowledge-based systems to interoperate -
>    for example, by exchanging knowledge, or collaborating as agents in
>    a co-operative problem-solving process - they must commit to the
>    definitions in a common ontology. Verifying such commitment is
>    therefore a prerequisite for reliable knowledge-based system
>    interoperability."
>
> We don't discuss this type of requirement in our documentation on
> merging, and perhaps we should investigate doing so. I would welcome
> further discussion on this topic.
>
> Murray
>
>
...........................................................................
> Murray Altheim
<mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA
94025
>
>       In the evening
>       The rice leaves in the garden
>       Rustle in the autumn wind
>       That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980764666/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com