- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:26:00 -0700
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Zille Huma" <zille.huma@upb.de>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Alan & Zille I suspect my ontologies are very similar to Alan's, but I use terminology that is a little more like ordinary English. (see http://mKRmKE.org) compare process has_participant continuant to entity do action done; process <=> action continuant <=> entity actions can have modifying phrases which specify time, object, etc. I plan to read your references carefully, but first I have to finish my jury duty. I'll get back to you soon. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> To: "Zille Huma" <zille.huma@upb.de> Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Ontologies with standard behavior of an information domain > > On May 28, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Zille Huma wrote: > >> Actually, My interest is to use ontologies in business domain and >> then define the semantics of web services on the basis of these >> business ontologies. For example, in the given example, the >> semantics of a HotelBooking web service can be defined more >> precisely with an underlying tourism ontology. Thanks for >> mentioning the ontologies that also contain standard behavior >> information. I am more curious about how the behavior can be >> captured in ontology, i.e., what is the structure of any behavioral >> node in an ontology. What in your opinion is a better way to >> capture behavioral information in an ontology, e.g., behavior may >> be captured in the form of business process or stand alone >> activities, etc. > > Hi Zille, > > In my own work, I've been using the Basic Formal Ontology (http:// > ifomis.org/bfo) as the upper level ontology, which defines processes > as distinct from things that are not processes (continuants). > Processes(occurents) are dependent, via the has_participant relation, > on continants. They have parts, which are other processes that occupy > a piece of the space time of the whole process. > > The underlying philosophy of representation is called "Realism", > which I can best describe as an attempt, when defining terms, to make > clear an "audit trail", if you will, to entities in the real world, > i.e. an understandable correspondence between what is being defined > in the ontology to things that exist or happen actually. If you are > interested in reading more, check out http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/ > > In some ways this avoids the question of what is better, since the > comparison is of what is represented to what is out in the world. But > of course this doesn't answer the full question in practice. In > practice you would first want to make clear what you want to be able > to say, and then determine what you will need to be able to ask and > have answered using your ontology. Answers to such questions might > determine the formalism, or level of detail at which you represent > your processes. > > As an example, if all you want to do is record something in an > Ontology and then read it out, then there is little constraint. If > you want it to be able to be merged with other people's work, then > there are some. If you want to be able to state general temporal > relations between activities and have consistency of your ontology > checked, then you can't even do this within the framework of the > current web ontology languages. > > Experience in the OBI project suggests that you work early on > outlining such "competency questions" for your ontology. > > If you give some such competency questions, I could see if I have any > experience that might be relevant to your representation issues, or > perhaps point you at people that do. > > -Alan > > Dick McCullough mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done; knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; http://mKRmKE.org/
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 14:34:41 UTC