Re: [xtm-wg] Common Assumptions

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

Jack

I'm not quite sure I really catch your point concerning "bottom-up" or
"top-down" approach of ontologies.
Anyway I don't think we - mean by that the XTM authors/users - have to
pronounce on the way ontologies are built, which is a very interesting
debate we can continue in other forums (fora ?) but it's not in the field
of the specification IMO.
There are and they will always be - at least I hope so - a great variety of
ontologies, dictionaries, languages and views of the world.
I forged once the word "ontodiversity" like a generalization of
"biodiversity". Same advantages.
My only point is : if you want your Map to be sharable, use some visible
and stable one.
If I use Cyc as my TM reference, all TM using that same Cyc reference will
be able to merge Topics referenced in Cyc. No more.
As I answered very shortly to you in private, using Harrap's rather than
Webster's as reference dictionary when I play Scrabble - well, in fact I
generally play Scrabble in French, so it's either Larousse or Robert (or
both) - does not mean Harrap's is a "better one" or "unique reference".
Maybe it's the only one at hand when I play, and it's there only to make
sure all players have the same reference in case of disagreement.
I really don't believe in any consensus reality. I have a more modest
objective : build pragmatic tools enabling that when I say "A" and you say
"A" we can make sure we *agree we refer* to the same subject indicator ;
and using the same public dictionary/ontology is the only way I see to do
that.

That does not mean we have the same understanding of the definition we both
refer to.
That does not mean that definition is the best and only one.
And that has nothing to do with the way the dictionary/ontology is built.

Now we have another issue : will collaborative TM building help to build
"consensus" ontologies inside a community ?
I should be happy to answer yes. The only way to know is : let's try.

Bernard

---------------------------------------
Bernard Vatant
bernard@universimmedia.com
www.universimmedia.com
"Building Knowledge"
---------------------------------------


----- Message d'origine -----
De : Jack Park <jackpark@verticalnet.com>
À : <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé : lundi 29 janvier 2001 20:14
Objet : Re: [xtm-wg] Common Assumptions


> It seems to me that merging TMs is about collective agreement with regard
to
> semantics.  Here, Murray makes reference to *all* components in topic
maps
> prior to merging.  Would *all* refer to all associations, roles, and so
> forth prior to a merge process?
>
> I tend to think that everything we claim to *know* -- that which we refer
to
> as *knowledge*, is gained by combinations of creative acts and social
> interaction, which lead, ultimately, to what Doug Lenat calls *concensus
> reality*.  We have choices in life.  We can follow the IEEE process of
> philosophical engineering (term due to Henry Van Eiken), and amass
scholars
> for a project to top-down decide which environment (e.g. KIF) best suits
the
> needs of designing, again, top-down, an ontology we can all live with.
We
> can follow a bottom-up, perhaps pragmatic approach and utilize public
> structures to formulate dialogs which may lead to concensus reality.  In
any
> case, the XTM project has the look and feel of a top-down design project,
> the work product of which will be an environment useful for sharing
> representations of knowledge, no matter what you call it.
>
> In some sense, I believe that the XTM project is on a path, one which
leads
> towards the support of common ontologies, whatever those might be. Those
of
> us who subscribe to the notion that concepts (topics, subjects) are, in
many
> respects, basins of attraction that serve the needs of many contexts,
might
> argue that XTM, itself, goes only part of the distance toward such an
> outcome.  What interests me most is that our discussions here could
benefit
> greatly from using Bryan Thompson's implementation of IBIS as a mechanism
> for casting pointed questions into a pool of critical discussion,
leading,
> perhaps, towards the concensus reality we all seek.
>
> Some colleagues, like Murray, do not wish to advocate the requirement of
> public ontologies, and others may feel that such entities are not
possible.
> I would argue that, by some definition, public ontologies are essential
if
> we wish to make the claim that we can merge topic maps. I believe that
> Murray makes this case in his closing sentences below.  I would like to
> advocate that the XTM project begin, in some sense, to acknowledge the
fact
> that our specification supports 'ontological engineering'. I would
further
> advocate that such acknowledgement open the door to deeper discussions
> regarding the merging process itself.
>
> Jack
>
> From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
>
> <snippage>
> > Actually, I wasn't advocating the requirement of public ontologies, but
> > that we address (in the specification) the issue of semantic agreement
> > between *all* components in topic maps prior to merging, not just
topics
> > based on subject. As you point out, name-based merging requires that
> > there be agreement on both name and scope, as well as what the scope
> > provides semantically. While in the abstract this seems somewhat
> > straightforward, I think it will be profoundly difficult to implement
> > programmatically.
> >
> > For example, to return to ontologies and the like, it would be
exceedingly
> > valuable to map the relations between a common ontology like Cyc and
the
> > US Library of Congress subject headings, but I see no way to perform
this
> > via computer (at this time). The manual (ie., human) process of mapping
> > over 320,000 subjects to terms in a similarly-sized ontology would be
> > daunting at best, and would even then only serve to provide the map
based
> > on the context in which the human judged equivalence. This is a vexing
> > problem that is only *highlighted* in this example, but shows up in
every
> > merge process.
> >
> > Murray
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
=
> This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
> contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
> the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is
prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
> of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
> immediately.
>
===========================================================================
=
>
>
>
> 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/_/980897041/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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