1 / 15

KR-2002 Panel/Debate

KR-2002 Panel/Debate. Are Upper-Level Ontologies worth the effort? Chris Welty, IBM Research. What is Ontology? [Smith & Welty, 2001]. A discipline of Philosophy Meta-physics dates back to Artistotle Ontology dates back to 17th century The science of what is One universe - one ontology

fawn
Download Presentation

KR-2002 Panel/Debate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KR-2002 Panel/Debate Are Upper-Level Ontologies worth the effort? Chris Welty, IBM Research

  2. What is Ontology?[Smith & Welty, 2001] • A discipline of Philosophy • Meta-physics dates back to Artistotle • Ontology dates back to 17th century • The science of what is • One universe - one ontology • Borrowed by AI community • McCarthy (1980) calls for “a list of things that exist” • Evolution of meaning • Now refers to domain modeling, conceptual modeling, knowledge engineering, etc.

  3. a set of general logical axioms a collection of taxonomies a catalog a glossary a set of text files a collection of frames a thesaurus complexity without automated reasoning with automated reasoning What is an Ontology?[Welty, Uschold, Gruninger, Lehmann & McGuinness, 1999]

  4. What is an Upper Level Ontology? • The most general classifications of entities • Domain independent • High reusability, utility • “Common reference” ontology • The most basic building blocks (foundation) of ontologies, e.g. • Properties: Event/object, abstract/concrete, … • Relations: Isa, part, instance, …

  5. Examples of Upper Level Ontologies • Wordnet Upper Level [Miller, Fellbaum] • Cyc Upper Level [Lehmann, Klein] • IEEE SUO […] • OntoClean Top Level [Guarino, et al] • GOL [Smith, et al]

  6. What an Upper Level Ontology is not • Necessarily large • Necessarily part of any system that uses it • Necessarily goal-independent • Necessarily language dependent • Easy

  7. Pro Nicola Guarino CNR, Italy Brandon Bennett U. Leeds, UK Con Alan Rector U. Manchester, UK Jim Hendler U. Maryland, USA Panelists

  8. Panelist IntroductionNicola Guarino • Background • Ontology, Formal Ontology • Recent Work • OntoClean, restructuring WordNet • Goal • Bring together CS, Philosophy, and Linguistics • Ontology • Account of intended meaning of terms

  9. Panelist IntroductionBrandon Bennett • Background • Spatial and temporal reasoning • Recent Work • Axiomatic systems for space/time, vagueness [VUG] • Goal • A unifying foundational ontology • Ontology • Rigorous definition of concepts

  10. Panelist IntroductionAlan Rector • Background • Medical terminologies, description logics • Recent Work • GALEN, part/whole reasoning, drug info • Goal • Integration of clinical systems with decision support, indexing of evidence • Ontology • Implementation of the formal representation of concepts needed for a collection of information resources

  11. Panelist IntroductionJim Hendler • Background • Scaleable KR Systems, Interoperability, Agents • Recent Work • DAML, DAML+OIL, W3C webont chair • Goal • A semantic web • Ontology • A web of nested terminologies

  12. Are upper-level ontologies worth the effort?

  13. Points Against • No “The” • Agreement impossible • On the scale of the web, ridiculous • Standardizing syntax OK, but not semantics • Cognitive systems differ, even within people • Different cog system, different “ontology” • Consequences of decisions hard to predict, but important • Middle level easier, more important • Upper level development often gets bogged down • Takes time away from more critical parts of a system • No way to evaluate quality • Easy to teach someone middle-level concepts • Upper level often too opaque to explain • Some domains require different levels of complexity depending on the needs

  14. Points for • Standardizing upper level is no different than standardizing syntax, its just the next step • to establish consensus, there must be some common ground • We don’t know how to argue • Need tools to support argumentation • We must understand when we disagree

  15. Other points • What is upper level? • Abstract, or simple? • Where is the evidence to support upper level notions? • Time: easy or hard? • How relevant is philosophical ontology? • What is the value of legislation? • Role of logic, category theory • How do we learn how to communicate • Upper ontology similar to language creation?

More Related