- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:03:12 -0800
- To: jack@networkinference.com
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
I suspect this is one of those familiar cases where the, er, professionals, or maybe old hands would be better, know that some problem is almost certainly unsolvable *in general* and they know many nasty examples which are guaranteed to wreck any attempt to solve the problem *in general*, but that in practice one can do very useful work that pays off in real terms quite effectively, particularly if one keeps away from the corner cases. This situation tends to lead to this kind of mutually recriminationory conversation where the practical guys are kind of pleased with what they can get done, and the old hands are offended by what seems to them to be empty boasting. "Works fine" for example is capable of many subtle nuances of meaning. To some, it sounds like 'never fails' , i.e. a claim to have solved the central theoretical problems. To others, no doubt, it merely indicates that, as we used to say in our final reports to funding agencies, useful results have been achieved in some cases. Pat >No, we never made the assertion that the bridge axiom creation was >entirely automatic. We stated that with some axioms, the use of OWL with >inferencing algorithms can maintain the logical consistency, and answer >cross ontology queries (which was the original question). I think Jim & >Bijan did a good job discussing the issues. We do have tools that allow >some use of algorithms that do indeed suggest bridging axioms and generate >the appropriate OWL, but due to the different nature of these algorithms >(probabilistic among other techniques) as opposed to OWL-DL (deductive >logic), we advise some person-in-the loop work to ensure continuity. >Again, once checked, cross ontology reasoning and querying works fine. In >addition, the precision of these algorithms is greatly increased if >constrained within domains (i.e, not trying to compare a bookselling >webservice with a type of cancer, but only against other e-commerce >services) > >Jack > > > >> >> Bijan Parsia wrote: >>>On Dec 17, 2003, at 1:24 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: >>> >>>> The 'problem' I was referring to was that of automatically mapping one >>>> ontology (written I assume by person or persons A) to another (written >>>> by persons B). >>>> >>>> People have asserted that there exist automatic tools for doing that. >>>> And I was pointing out some corner cases. >>> >>>For the record, I don't believe that I, personally, made such an >>>assertion. Nor did I intend to. I didn't read anyone else in this >>>thread as doing so. >> >> I believe someone from NI made such an assertion. Perhaps this thread >> started on another list and migrated. It doesn't belong here, as Drew >> McDermott already pointed out. >> >> -Evan >> >> Evan K. Wallace >> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division >> NIST >> ewallace@nist.gov >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 13:04:15 UTC