W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Cross-ontologies reasoning

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:07:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200312170108.hBH17pw12056@pantheon-po02.its.yale.edu>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org


   [Frank McCabe]
   Actually, a more realistic scenario is that there are missing relations 
   and missing concepts  between the two ontologies.
   Think about a office planner's chair ontology, compared to a 
   carpenter's version.

You're right about that, which is why it's better to think in terms of
_merging_ ontologies rather than eliminating one in favor of another.
See the bibrefs at the end of this message.

   On the other hand, if you are an office planner, and you want to ask a 
   carpenter about getting some chairs, you stand a chance of 
   communicating that ...

I gather your point is that people are better at communicating using
natural language than computers are?  Hard to argue with that.

                                             -- Drew



Dejing Dou, Drew McDermott, and Peishen Qi 2002
Ontology translation by ontology merging and automated reasoning.
In {\it Proc. EKAW Workshop on Ontologies for Multi-Agent Systems}. 

Dejing Dou, Drew McDermott, and Peishen Qi 2003
Ontology translation on the semantic web.  In {\it Proc. 
Int'l Conf. on Ontologies, 
Databases and Applications of SEmantics (ODBASE) 2003}

Alexandar Maedche, B. Motik, N. Silva, R. Volz 2003  MAFRA --- a
mapping framework for distributed ontologies.   In {\it Proc. EKAW
(Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management) 2002}, Volume 2473 of
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag

-- 
                                   -- Drew McDermott
                                      Yale Computer Science Department
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2003 20:13:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:53 GMT