Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)
Kirk Borne
borne at rings.gsfc.nasa.gov
Wed Oct 2 06:49:56 PDT 2002
Thank you Tony. I can live with that, and (in fact) that is what
I had hoped to receive from this list.
- Kirk
> From: "Tony Linde" <tol at star.le.ac.uk>
> To: <semantics at us-vo.org>
> Subject: RE: Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:46:32 +0100
>
> Kirk, the mailing list was partly set up as the latter. But the problems
> we face and our need for practical solutions are the same as those of
> any other scientific project looking at the issue of ontologies. It is
> natural that we should work with other branches of e-Science.
> (Especially in the case of AstroGrid; we have close links with myGrid, a
> bioinformatics project under the same umbrella of 'UK e-Science'.)
>
> If this interworking means that we have to explain a little astronomy to
> the bioinformaticians and they have to explain some genetics in return
> then that can only be to our mutual benefit.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony.
> __
> Tony Linde Phone: +44 (0)116 223 1292
> AstroGrid Project Manager Fax: +44 (0)116 252 3311
> Dept of Physics & Astronomy Mobile: +44 (0)7753 603356
> University of Leicester Email: tol at star.le.ac.uk
> Leicester, UK LE1 7RH Web: http://www.astrogrid.org
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kirk Borne [mailto:borne at rings.gsfc.nasa.gov]
> > Sent: 02 October 2002 14:12
> > To: semantics at us-vo.org; tol at star.le.ac.uk
> > Cc: seanb at cs.man.ac.uk; p.lord at russet.org.uk
> > Subject: RE: Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)
> >
> >
> > Hi. As a 'lurker', I would like to ask : is this a mailing
> > list for Ontology/Semantics discussions or is it a list for
> > Virtual Observatory discussions related to
> > ontology/semantics? I thought that it was the latter.
> >
> > - Kirk
> > +------------------------------------+------------------------
> > -------------+
> > | Dr. Kirk D. Borne |
> > mailto:Kirk.Borne at gsfc.nasa.gov |
> > | Institute for Science & Technology, Raytheon (IST at R)
> > |
> > | NASA Goddard Space Flight Center |
> > |
> > | Astrophysics Data Facility | Phone: 301-286-0696
> > |
> > | Code 631 | or
> > 301-286-2772:Kathy Starling |
> > | Greenbelt, MD 20771 | FAX: 301-286-1771
> > |
> > +------------------------------------+------------------------
> > -------------+
> > US Virtual Observatory: http://us-vo.org/
> > Staff page:
> > http://rings.gsfc.nasa.gov/~borne/bio_borne_kirk.html
> > Raytheon ITSS: http://itss.raytheon.com/capabilities/
> >
> >
> > > From: "Tony Linde" <tol at star.le.ac.uk>
> > > To: <semantics at us-vo.org>
> > > Cc: "'seanb'" <seanb at cs.man.ac.uk>, "Phillip Lord"
> > > <p.lord at russet.org.uk>
> > > Subject: RE: Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)
> > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:00:16 +0100
> > >
> > > Welcome Steve.
> > >
> > > I don't want to spark an OntoWar, but could people
> > (participants and
> > > lurkers alike) say if there is any significant difference between a
> > > topic map approach to ontologies and an OWL (or its ancestors')
> > > language approach.
> > >
> > > Are there other approaches of significance?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tony.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-semantics at us-vo.org
> > > > [mailto:owner-semantics at us-vo.org] On Behalf Of Steve Pepper
> > > > Sent: 02 October 2002 12:47
> > > > To: semantics at us-vo.org
> > > > Subject: Where to start (was: Ontology for Dummies)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to Ashish Mahabal for bringing this forum to my attention.
> > > >
> > > > Tony Linde wrote (about "Ontology for Dummies"):
> > > > >I know, there isn't such a book, so what can we (the
> > > > non-experts) have
> > > > >to get us up to speed. Can we come up with suggested texts
> > > > that would
> > > > >take a non-expert from basics through to understanding why
> > > > and how to
> > > > >encode a subject domain ontology and why and how to use
> > it in one
> > > > >or
> > > > >more applications.
> > > >
> > > > Here are a couple of papers that I've found useful:
> > > >
> > > > * Deborah McGuinness' chapter in the forthcoming "Spinning
> > > > the Semantic
> > > > Web", called "Ontologies Come of Age":
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontologies-come-
> > > > of-age-mit-press-(with-citation).htm
> > > >
> > > > * "Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your
> > First Ontology"
> > > > by Natalya F. Noy and Deborah L. McGuinness
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/
> > > > ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html
> > > >
> > > > I don't know of anything that discusses ontology design with
> > > > specific reference to topic maps (apart from internal course
> > > > material here at Ontopia), but the principles are pretty
> > > > simple. If you've read "The TAO of Topic Maps" [1] you know
> > > > that the core concepts in topic maps are Topics,
> > > > Associations, and Occurrences (hence "TAO"). Each of these
> > > > can be classified by type (topic types, association types,
> > > > occurrence types)
> > > > - and types are themselves also topics...
> > > >
> > > > Thus "Puccini" is a topic of type "composer", and "composer"
> > > > is also a topic. The association (relationship) between the
> > > > topic "Puccini" and the topic "Tosca" (which is of type
> > > > "opera") is of type "composed by", which is also a topic. An
> > > > information resource containing the libretto of Tosca would
> > > > be an occurrence (of type "libretto") of the topic "Tosca".
> > > >
> > > > In this example, the (typing) topics "composer", "opera",
> > > > "composed by" and "libretto" constitute the ontology -- or
> > > > what some people term the "upper ontology". The "lower
> > > > ontology" consists of the individuals, "Puccini", "Tosca" etc.
> > > >
> > > > (Apologies for not being able to give you examples from your
> > > > own domain: The only "stars" I am familiar with are ones like
> > > > Maria Callas and Pavarotti :-)
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong!) that what this
> > > > initiative needs is
> > > >
> > > > (1) agreement, as far as possible, on a common upper
> > ontology and how
> > > > to *identify* the classes it consists of
> > > > (2) agreement on how to identify a useful common subset of known
> > > > individuals, but without (necessarily) assigning those
> > > > individuals
> > > > to classes (since this might be controversial).
> > > >
> > > > As soon as you have that, everyone can start making their own
> > > > assertions about any of the subjects in question in such a
> > > > way that knowledge about them can be aggregated, shared
> > and reused.
> > > >
> > > > I would advise you to apply the KISS principle. You will
> > > > experience an almost irresistible temptation to bite off more
> > > > than you can chew, to "overmodel", to get embroiled in
> > > > endless discussions about almost unresolvable details. Resist
> > > > that temptation! Agree on the minimal common subset that is
> > > > actually useful and extend it later as necessary. In
> > > > particular, don't bother at this stage to try and express
> > > > complex constraints on the classes you identify for the upper
> > > > ontology.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, I would advise you to look seriously at the
> > > > Published Subject initiatives taking place under the auspices
> > > > of OASIS:
> > > >
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/
> > >
> > > You will achieve a lot in a short time if you concentrate
> > on defining
> > > published subjects for your upper and lower ontologies. Among other
> > > things, it will make the choice of knowledge representation
> > formalism
> > > less important, since published subjects allow multiple
> > formalisms to
> > > interoperate. If anyone is interested in pursuing such a
> > course, say
> > > so (in a new thread) and Bernard Vatant and I can explain how to go
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > I wish you luck in your endeavours and will continue to
> > lurk here in
> > > case I can be of use.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper at ontopia.net>
> > Convenor,
> > > ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps) Ontopia AS,
> > > Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
> http://www.ontopia.net/
> > phone:
> > +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
More information about the semantics
mailing list