RE: ONT Varieties Of Ontology

Dear Jon,

This is a good question. But I do nto recall, and cannot
find quickly the distinction between a ROSO and an ULTO.
Could you provide a definition/description please?


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 14 December 2003 17:01
> To: Inquiry; Ontology; SemioCom
> Subject: ONT Varieties Of Ontology
> 
> 
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> VOO 1
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> Problem Statement.
> 
> A.  What are the different types of ontology projects
>     that are covered by our current scope and purpose?
> 
> B.  What are the criteria that are appropriate
>     to each of the different ontology projects?
> 
> Given, then, that different types of ontology projects
> will have different criteria for the acceptability and
> the adequacy of proposals at each stage of development,
> let us see if we can formulate the respective criteria
> for a number of ontology projects that fall within the
> charge, scope and purpose of a standard upper ontology.
> 
> A variety of ontology projects come to mind.
> I will give them these working designations:
> 
> 1.  ROSO
> 
>     What are the minimal criteria of acceptability of
>     a "research oriented scientific ontology" (ROSO)?
> 
> 2.  ULTO
> 
>     What are the minimal criteria of acceptability for
>     an "upper level technical ontology" (ULTO)?
> 
> 3.  URFO
> 
>     What are the minimal criteria of acceptability for
>     an "un-reflective folk ontology" (URFO)?
> 
> We've all concurred, or at least relented, that there's
> room enough under the Standard Umbrella Ontology for the
> type of "un-reflective folk ontology" (URFO) that concerns
> itself mostly with "shoes, ships, sealing wax", and so on,
> but the question remains, on less rainy days, whether the
> principles and the parameters that suit the garden variety
> URFO are adaptable to the rigors of the ROSO and the ULTO.
> 
> After we have settled on the minimal criteria of acceptability,
> we might then venture into establishing the ideal criteria of
> adequacy for the respective types of ontologies.
> 
> Defining, or at least characterizing these types
> of ontology projects would of course be a major
> part of the task of developing the respective
> criteria for acceptability and adequacy.
> 
> Jon Awbrey
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> Notes on previous exchanges:
> 
> JA = Jon Awbrey
> JH = Jay Halcomb
> PG = Pierre Grenon
> 
> PG: Never the less, it seems to me that this group would be
>     better off if proposed material was judged on criteria
>     similar to those by which the final product shall be
>     evaluated, rather than dependent upon pleasant
>     email exchanges.
> 
> JH: I agree with this view, which was the essential point
>     of my last e-mail -- getting more specific about such
>     criteria for working documents.
> 
> JA: Many people, present writer included, have observed that 
> the criteria
>     appropriate to different kinds of ontology applications 
> and projects,
>     all of them nonetheless falling under the rather large tent of our
>     scope and purpose document, may be radically different.
> 
> JA: In particular, I have pointed to the differences in 
> working methodology
>     and goals of research oriented ontologies and, for the 
> lack of a better
>     name, so-called commonsense ontologies.
> 
> JH: Precisely so.  I think that we've many of us said these similar
>     things at one time or another, and we always return to them when
>     a proposal is made (recall the discussion about the CycL language
>     when that proposal was made).  That is why I think that developing
>     clearer acceptance criteria, upfront, for specifying these various
>     targets is important, when it comes to working documents for the
>     group.  Specifically, developing  specification criteria for
>     terminologies, languages, and logic(s).  I would  hope the
>     IFF folks should have some specific thoughts about this.
> 
> JA: Until a better term comes along, I'm using the word "project"
>     somewhat in the way that people speak of cultural projects or
>     existential projects -- broad, compelling, if slightly vague
>     intimations of something that needs to be done.
> 
> JA: Here is a narrative about one sort of ontology project,
>     the aims, criteria, and working assumptions of which
>     I am acquainted with, and feel like I understand:
> 
> JA: I once got sold on the project of building software 
> bridges between
>     qualitative and quantitative research.  For example, in many areas
>     of clinical practice, medical anthropology, and public health one
>     has "practitioner-scientist models" where people accumulate lots
>     of free-floating informal hunches and qualitative impressions in
>     their on-the-job settings, that they then need to follow up with
>     hard data gathering, quantitatively measurable constructs, and
>     the usual battery of statistical methods.  A lot of practical
>     savvy never gets widely distributed, and a lot of benighted
>     mythology never gets tested, all for the lack of good ways
>     to refine this "personal knowledge" into scientific truth.
> 
> JA: It still seems to me that properly designed lexical and 
> logical resources
>     ought to provide us with some of the plancks we need to 
> build this bridge.
> 
> JA: At first strike, it sounds like this ought to involve an 
> integration of
>     research oriented and common sense ontologies.  But there 
> has seemed to
>     arise one insurmountable obstacle after another in trying 
> to do this.
> 
> JA: Just by way of focusing on a concrete illustration, take 
> the word "event".
>     Formalizing the concept of "event" for a research 
> oriented ontology does
>     not require any discusssion on our part.  Those 
> discussions were carried
>     out somewhere between the days of 
> powdered-wig-wearing-high-rollers and
>     the days of manurial comparisons.  To get the standard 
> axioms, one goes
>     to a standard reference book and copies them into one's 
> knowledge base:
> 
>     | PAS.  Probability And Statistics -- Ontology List
>     |
>     | 01.  http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04885.html
>     | 02.  http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04886.html
>     | 03.  http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04887.html
>     | 04.  http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04888.html
>     |
>     | et sic deinceps ...
> 
> JA: The only question is whether one's favorite ontology 
> prover is up to
>     the snuff of proving whatever theorems need to be proved thereon.
> 
> JA: There can be no compromise with these criteria.
>     The research market simply will not bear it.
>     So if there is to be an integration with
>     nontechnical language and methodology,
>     it must be an augmentation of these
>     basics and not their overwriting.
> 
> JA: I have gotten used to the idea that there is another sort 
> of ontology project,
>     but since I do not get the cogency of it, it seems like 
> its definition and its
>     criteria of validity would have to come from the critical 
> self-examination of
>     those whose project it is.  All I know at present is that 
> the obvious course
>     that I suggested above for formalizing the concept 
> "event" is probably the
>     course of last resort from the standpoint of this 
> alternative project.
> 
> JA: That is what I mean by radical differences in working 
> criteria for acceptance.
> 
> JA: Similar disjunctions of approach and acceptability could 
> be observed
>     for several other dimensions of diversity among 
> ontological projects,
>     for example, the "already been chewed" vs. the "knowledge 
> soup" brands,
>     that is, those who expect full-fledged axiom systems from 
> the outset
>     vs. those who would gel their knowledge chunks out of a 
> semiotic sol.
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
>