1 / 6

Common Upper Ontology for Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability

Common Upper Ontology for Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability. The U.S. Army Communications Electronics Command James Schoening james.schoening@us.army.mil (732)532-5812 19 May 2004. CECOM Bottom Line: THE WARFIGHTER.

lotus
Download Presentation

Common Upper Ontology for Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability

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. Common Upper Ontology for Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability The U.S. Army Communications Electronics Command James Schoening james.schoening@us.army.mil (732)532-5812 19 May 2004 CECOM Bottom Line: THE WARFIGHTER

  2. Question #1: Would a ‘good enough’ common upper ontology provide benefits?(Assuming feasibility) • Yes responses: • Obrst: “ANY upper ontology is better than none.”(1) • Cassidy: “Yes, it is desirable and feasible to develop a common upper ontology within a large organization.” http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12537.html • No responses: None

  3. Question #2: Can we achieve cross-domain semantic interoperability without a common ontology? • No responses: • Cassidy (IEEE): “there is no other way to communicate conceptual information between computers that can begin to approximate the efficiency of an upper ontology.” http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12537.html • West (IEEE): “Either they both need to be mapped to (or use) a common ontology, or you need to do a one to one mapping “http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12543.html • Obrst: “Ultimately, no, you cannot.”(1) • Yes responses: • Polikoff: “I understand Tim Berners-Lee believes semantic interoperability can be achieved without a common upper ontology.”

  4. Question #3 (New): Is a common upper ontology feasible? • Yes responses: • Cassidy:”standard upper ontology is perfectly feasible” http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12537.html • No Responses: • SOWA: “too brittle to accommodate all the variations and modifications that inevitably arise.” http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12561.html • SOWA: Cyc, which has spent 20 years developing a tightly-organized ontology from top to bottom without achieving a single money-making application, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12539.html • SOWA: “not going to get there by a brute-force legislation of one universal ontology. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg12540.html • My Response: Many known and unknown challenges. We won’t know until we try. May be hard, very heard. But DoD must try.

  5. Question #4 (New): What are the tasks and challenges? (If a common upper ontology is selected by Army, DoD, Fed) • Improving selected upper ontology? • Developing domain ontologies? • Finding qualified employees/contractors? • Mapping legacy systems? • Conformance standards and testing?

  6. Army Common Upper Ontology Evaluation Team • Awaiting approval of Army CIO/G-6 charter to: • Explore benefits/feasibility   • Evaluate candidates • Identify technical challenges and way ahead • Report out by 30 July 2004 • Initial organizations represented: • CECOM; TRADOC; FCS; ARL; CERDEC-C2D; CERDEC-I2W • Will expand membership as much as we can • Email me at james.schoening@us.army.mil if you’d like to join. • Partially evaluating in open with IEEE at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/

More Related