1 / 20

Perspectives on UOS

Adam Pease Articulate Software apease@articulatesoftware.com http://www.articulatesoftware.com http://www.ontologyportal.org/ http://home.earthlink.net/~adampease/professional/. Perspectives on UOS.

susan-waters
Download Presentation

Perspectives on UOS

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. Adam Pease Articulate Software apease@articulatesoftware.com http://www.articulatesoftware.com http://www.ontologyportal.org/ http://home.earthlink.net/~adampease/professional/ Perspectives on UOS

  2. Old-style (most common) standards specifications: (ISO 14258, Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies) “3.6.1.1 Time representation If an individual element of the enterprise system has to be traced then properties of time need to be modeled to describe short-term changes. If the property time is introduced in terms of duration, it provides the base to do further analyses (e.g., process time). There are two kinds of behavior description relative to time: static and dynamic.” Data-model standards (ISO 10303-41, Product Description and Support) ENTITY product_context SUBTYPE OF (application_context_element); discipline_type : label; END_ENTITY; Semantic-model standards (IEEE P1600.1 - SUMO, ISO 18629-11, PSL Core) (forall (?t1 ?t2 ?t3) (=> (and (before ?t1 ?t2) (before ?t2 ?t3)) (before ?t1 ?t3))) Thanks to Steve Ray, NIST Pursuit of Rigor in Data Standards

  3. name Joe Smith BS Case Western Reserve, 1982 MS UC Davis, 1984 education CV private Married, 2 children 1985-1990 ACME Software, programmer work Imagine...your view of the web

  4. name education CV private work ...and the Computer's View

  5. <job name=”Joe Smith” title=”Programmer”> But wait, we've got XML -

  6. <job name=”Joe Smith” title=”Programmer”> <x83 m92=”|||||||||” title=”..............”> But wait, we've got XML -

  7. Mammal Person JoeSmith But wait, we've got Taxonomies -

  8. x931 o4839 i3729 But wait, we've got Taxonomies -

  9. Mammal Mammal subclass Person implies instance instance JoeSmith JoeSmith Wait, we've got semantics -

  10. Mammal Mammal subclass Person implies instance instance JoeSmith JoeSmith x9834 x9834 r22 u8475 implies r53 r53 p3489 p3489 Wait, we've got semantics -

  11. Semantics Helps a Machine Appear Smart • A “smart” machine should be able to make the same inferences we do • (let's not debate the AI philosophy about whether it would actually be smart)

  12. Implementation is Different from Representation • Why lose meaning at design time just because of runtime issues? • We can’t reason with English definitions, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t document our terms • Many different implementations may be done from the same representation • This does not mean that run time issues should be ignored at design time • If you represent information you know can’t be reasoned with, it better not be essential in most conceivable applications

  13. Ontology Language - Expandable - language independent - machine understandable - understood by humans - ambiguous Knowledge - changes rapidly - may be local to an entity Ontology vs Language and Knowledge

  14. Mapping (deceptively easy) • http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/swrc-onto-2001-12-11.daml#Event • http://www.aktors.org/ontology/portal#Event • comment: This is a minimalist definition of class event. We start with the very basic and we will then add slots as we specialise this definition for specific classes of events. The fillers of slots has-other-agents-involved and has-main-agent should not intersect • sub-class of: http://www.aktors.org/ontology/support#Temporal-Thing

  15. Mapping (hard) • SUMO:Process • DOLCE:Perdurant • TemporalPart(x, y) =df perdurant(x) ^ Part(x, y) ^ forall z((Part(z, y) ^ z subset x) -> Part(z, x) • These are just some of many axioms in each ontology (=> (and (instance ?PROC Process) (subProcess ?SUBPROC ?PROC)) (exists (?TIME) (time ?SUBPROC ?TIME)))

  16. Summary • If someone things mapping is feasible, it should be easy to do an example of mapping a half dozen terms from each

  17. Why One Upper Ontology? • Translation is hard • There are many possible upper ontologies • But infinitely many bad ones • English, French, Swahili, Mandarin are all reasonable as common human languages • But people pick one so as not to translate

  18. Need for Formal Definition • UDEF examples • 8. Process: Business Process • 16. Event: Any event of interest to the enterprise • 4. Code: A character string used to replace a definitive value • 8. Identifier: A character string used to identify and distinguish uniquely • From http://www.opengroup.org/udefinfo/defs.htm

  19. Isn't this stuff too hard?

  20. Isn't this stuff too hard? • Well, let's just look under the lamppost because the light is better there

More Related