[Person-ontology] OWL for exchanging ontologies
paola.dimaio at gmail.com
paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 22:02:55 PDT 2007
Hi Pat!
Your training in management is beginning to show.
> Why do I feel like I'm being manipulated? :-)
being managed Pat -not manipulated :-)
You are being far too nice to me.
i am just hoping to get to you better side -
I recognize the
> signs. You will superficially agree with me, not
> be 'confrontational' (ie not argue),
we have only so much energy, gotta be used constructively
arguing can be fun but exhausting and very time consuming
as well as pointless
> emit
> flattering-seeming responses,
hehe
and then when we
> have all "agreed" in a nice comfortable-seeming
> consensus, it will emerge that I have agreed to
> do something I don't want to do (and you
> haven't.)
you got it - its called charme, cannot buy off the shelf
>
> Here's the problem. Suppose we do this and agree
> on the properties and so on, all in English; and
> also agree on a formalism. Immediately, as soon
> as the properties and so on are written down in
> the formalism, they no longer mean what they
> meant in English, when we agreed on them. In some
> ways they mean less, of course; but in some other
> ways they mean more: their meanings are 'sharper'
> than those of English words, more exactly drawn.
I think we use 'structured english' for that
This is why single words in English (like
> "cover") have to be given many alternative
> meanings in formal ontologies (Cyc has something
> like 20 different sense of 'cover' all carefully
> distinguished.) So, it often turns out, the
> agreement that we so painfully constructed back
> in the English wasn't in fact an agreement at
> all, because some of us were thinking of one of
> the precise senses and others of another (and
> others still weren't even aware of the
> distinctions.)
we use controlled vocabuaries for that
Often, at least in my experience,
> the ONLY effective way to even get the necessary
> distinctions clarified to the point where
> agreements or disagreements can begin to be be
> discussed, is to begin to formalize them. In
> fact, the formalization process consists in large
> part of clarifying and isolating shades and
> aspects of meaning that are never exposed in
> ordinary language discussions.
depends how precise and expressive is the natural language.used
But when writing an
> ontology, there really isn't very much
> 'large-scale' structure to worry about: there
> aren't any big strategic choices between rival
> methods, etc.. But there *are* worries about what
> the words used in the description *mean*. And an
> elaborate description couched in a language which
> we know is going to change as soon as we
> formalize it can't be anything more than a
> preliminary sketch.
sketches are the first outline of any idea, in any field, from fine art to
major
engineering
> And first, absolute first, must be requirements analysis
> >as you and I already discussed and partly agreed
> >on the Ontolog list a while back
>
> Well, true. I'd like to have a clearer idea of
> what this ontology is supposed to be used for.
> Perhaps the project leaders could oblige us ??
or employ us
we can also spontaneously initiate a requirements
gathering/analysis process for this project.if properly rewarded
> >we can easily use some free mind mapping
> >soffware and get the good people on this list
> >to do that kind of brainstorming remotely, would that work for you?
>
> Worth trying, but my experience is that working
> remotely isn't very effective. One needs a
> certain degree of the 'vatican council' effect
> where the people are all put in one room and
> mutually forced to focus on the topic, to get the
> group past the 'stuck' periods which inevitably
> happen.
I am thankful to remote environments, limiting the opportunity of physical
confrontation and carbon dioxide saturation - your choice of weapons -
although I do look forward to the opportunity to meet up, after the main
differences have been strighted out at a distance perhaps
>
>
> Well, there isn't (AFAIK) yet an accepted
> 'ontology engineering lifecycle',
there is but its still rather rudimentary - check out any ont eng
methodology
they are all lifecycle based, I have done a comparative study, there should
be something more authoritative than my own review online though
but Im sure
> that if one ever gets stated then it won't be
> much like the software engineering lifecycle in
> anything but a very general, overall sense.
Lifecycle phases of every project are pretty much equivalent, in principle
not just software - Ontology, as I discussed earier, is a project,
call it project lifecycle if you prefer
In the course I was obliged to take, quality was
> defined to be whatever made the customer happy.
> (I think that course was being given by
> incompetents, so I should not assume that the
> entire field is that daft. But it did leave me
> extremely sensitized to intellectual nonsense
> wearing the clothing of management theory.)
its unfortunate when our teachers fail to make us enthusiastic about a
subject
I have a similar experience with maths - never caught up with it
anyway, there are different 'views' fo quality (transcendet, user,
conformity to standards, etc)
a valid quality model will consist of all of them
user view is constrained by perception and subjective factors,
therefore in evaluating quality, you never have to rely on s single view
alone
I ll send you the slides
>
> YOU punch
> out a plan :-)
awaiting further instructions
Pdm
>>PDM>>> >>>p
> >>
> >>On 10/26/07, Pat Hayes <<mailto: phayes at ihmc.us>phayes at ihmc.us> wrote:
> >>>>>I say that before encoding ontology, there is some groundwork to be
> >>>>>done in plain english.
> >>>>
> >>>>OK. What?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>write spec - (lots of subtasks there)
> >>>
> >>>OK, perhaps then you can tell me what a spec of
> > >>an ontology should look like. I have never seen
> >>>one.
> >>>
> >>>>OWL is not a programming code, and
> >>>>formalizing knowledge is not like programming.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It's a 'metaphor'
> > >>
> >>>? WHat is a metaphor for what here? YOu have lost
> >>>me. If you are using programming (esp. management
> >>>of large software projects) as a metaphor for how
> >>>to build ontologies, I thinkn you are using a bad
> >>>(= highly misleading) metaphor.
> >>>
> >>>>- but I think you and I do not share the same background, therefore
> >>>>you tend to misinterpret my constructs
> >>>>regularlty. I wish I could express myself using
> >>>>mathematical formulas
> >>>
> >>>Well, I do read and write English reasonably proficiently.
> >>>
> >>>>Listing relevant facts and topic areas, and
> >>>>first application areas, might be well worth trying, however.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>sounds like a good start -diagrams are useful
> >>>>to some people, and not so useful to others
> >>>>but the fact that they are not useful to you,
> >>>>does not mean that you have the right to
> >>>>wipe them off the project
> >>>
> >>>True, I don't think I have any authority to wipe
> >>>anything. However I do have the right to ignore
> >>>them and requests to draw them, which I shall do.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>so, shall we start? (before worrying where it ends)
> >>>>
> >>>>Are there any facts about people that any of us are likely to *not*
> agree
> >>>on?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I can answer that after you tell me what the
> >>>>facts are, Where are the 'assertions'
> >>>>of this ontology?
> >>>
> >>>You have already said that you want to do all
> >>>this BEFORE any assertions have been written. The
> >>>assertions ARE the ontology.
> >>>
> >>>>so that we can discuss them (apols if I they are
> >>>>somewhere that I have not seen, but ifs so, they
> >>>>should be pointed to when referring to them)
> >>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>also, did nt you say that somethin in Higgins is broken, maybe
> >>>>>that's something that should be worked on before thinking of coding
> >>>>
> >>>>It was the coding that was 'broken', but maybe 'highly idiosyncratic'
> >>>>would be a better description.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I see, syntax then - was wondering about that
> >>>
> >>>No, not syntax: semantics. HOWL is syntactically correct OWL.
> >>>
> >>>Pat
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>PDM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Paola
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >>>>40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
> >>>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >>>>FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
> >>>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> >>>><<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
> >>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes ><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Paola Di Maio
> >>>>School of IT
> >>>><<http://www.mfu.ac.th> http://www.mfu.ac.th>
> >>><http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
> >>>>*********************************************
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >>>40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
> >>>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >>>FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
> >>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> >>><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Paola Di Maio
> >>School of IT
> >>< http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
> >>*********************************************
> >
> >
> >--
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >IHMC(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >40 South Alcaniz St.(850)202 4416 office
> >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >FL 32502(850)291 0667cell
> >phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> ><http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Paola Di Maio
> >School of IT
> ><http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
> >*********************************************
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071030/d74fd2ef/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list