W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Federated Ontology System: was semantic technologies training/request

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:00:39 +0000
To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
CC: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C589BD47.289B6%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
One thing which seemed a poor argument here:


On 06/01/2009 22:28, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, January 06, 2009 7:06 PM, Enrico Motta wrote:
> "...if you look at the SW as it is today, you can already see thousands and
> thousands of alternative
> conceptualizations. This is why the NeOn project is developing a variety of
> practical solutions
> that focus on enabling the development, maintenance and use of networked
> ontologies, rather than assuming that some individual or
> organization will give us the 'global ontology'."
>
> Dear Enrico,
>
> There is the whole point which somebody of us missing. The issue is, how you
> are doing the networking of domain ontologies.  What one read as a
> definition: "A Network of Ontologies is a collection of ontologies related
> together via a variety of different relationships such as mapping,
> modularization, version and  dependency relationships".  Softly speking, it
> is not very productive to think that way; for nobody in the world, in no
> time and money, is capable to interrelate in such ways an innumerable number
> of particular ontologies, distributed, autonomous and heterogeneous, with
> their specific local schemas, semantics, languages, formats, data models,
> and structures.
> Seemingly, You had an impression that i suggested a centralized, unitary
> ontology system governed by a single global schema. This is not the case.
> This matter is now also discussed on the Ontolog Forum. Some main points. I
> am talking about a realistic, flexible and scalable model of a federated
> (web) ontology [used in Ontopaedia, check the Index page,
> http://www.eis.com.cy]. The model implies such effective notions as
> "ontology federation", "federated ontology system", "federated global
> schema", 'federated ontology architecture", and "federated local schemas".
>  The notion of a federal union proved its viability in politics as a federal
> form of government, where power is divided between a central authority and
> regional authorities. Also, it was successfully applied in the database
> theory and practice, as "a federated architecture for database systems" or
> "a federated architecture for information management".
Notwithstanding discussions about which political systems have proved
themselves effective...
I really don't think anyone can claim that database federation has been
successful in the modern, open, web-enabled world.
The difficulty that I have in publishing my database and have it easily
federate with other databases is a (the?) major motivator for SW work.
> Now, alike with the power, knowledge is divided between a central ontology
> and regional ontologies. Then a federation ontology will consist of a single
> central ontology (maintaining the global schema, the semantics, the
> topology, the entry of new ontologies) and a multitude of component
> ontologies with own
> local schemas,  but members of the federation. There are technical issues,
> such as federated mechanism, semantic management, schemas integration and
> coordination, search, information retrieval and query processing, etc. But
> what is essential: the reality of the concept of Federated Ontology System,
> which, to my experience, looks more promising than any (botom-top)
> nonfederated ontology systems, either unitary or centralized or loose and
> unconnected, currently prevailing and propagating as pandemic on the WWW.
We often reflect our political beliefs in our technical work; it doesn't
validate either.
And if you were a Syndicalist Anarchist, you might see the Semantic Web
differently - but would that make your view any more correct?
Best
Hugh
>
> kind regards,
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Enrico Motta" <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
> Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>; <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: semantic technologies training/request
>
>
>
> At 20:18 +0200 30/12/08, Azamat wrote:
>> €
>> On Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:55, Paola wrote:
>> "PMI am starting to be introduced to great sw tools being released by the
>> various EU funded projects, for which lots and lots
>> of public money is been used such as
>> <http://ontoware.org/>http://ontoware.org/ as well as lots of others"
>>
>> Paola,
>> Thanks for an intersting link.
>>
>> I was intrigued to see what is presented as "ontoware", finding the
>> following  project as most engaging,
>> <http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/>http://www.neon-project.org/web-con

>> tent/.
>> Being surprised with overwhelming ontological activities, one is attracted
>> to browse the project boasting that:
>> "NeOn is a 14.7 million Euros project involving 14 European partners and
>> co-funded by the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme under
>> grant number IST-2005-027595. NeOn started in March 2006 and has a duration
>> of 4 years. Our aim is to advance the state of the art in using ontologies
>> for large-scale semantic applications in the distributed organizations.
>> Particularly, we aim at improving the capability to handle multiple
>> networked ontologies that exist in a particular context, are created
>> collaboratively, and might be highly dynamic and constantly evolving."
>>
>> Here is the NeOn basic defintion: "A Network of Ontologies is a collection
>> of ontologies related together via a variety of different relationships
>> such as mapping, modularization, version and  dependency relationships".
>> Indeed, all fundamental troubles are in assumptions and presumptions.
>>
> Glancing at the content, one might start
> questioning the promised tools and applications
> for justified reasons. First, instead of a
> variety of diverse, modular, individual
> ontologies, the Semantic Web implies an
> integrated collection of domain ontologies (
> knowledge bases) supported by a common global
> schema as a "standard ontology for machines and
> people".
>
>
> Dear Azamat,
>
> A lot of people (including myself) believe that
> it is both extremely unlikely, not to mention
> undesirable, that a common global ontological
> schema will become a "standard ontology for
> machines and people". And indeed, if you look at
> the SW as it is today, you can already see
> thousands and thousands of alternative
> conceptualizations. This is why the NeOn project
> is developing a variety of practical solutions
> that focus on enabling the development,
> maintenance and use of networked ontologies,
> rather than assuming that some individual or
> organization will give us the 'global ontology'.
>
> Very Best Wishes
>
> Enrico Motta
>
> --
>
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal
> Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England
> & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 02:03:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:14 UTC