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

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

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:36:17 +0200
Message-ID: <003001c971d9$237b60e0$a104810a@homepc>
To: <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:59 PM, Milton wrote:
"Personally I like the motto on the US coins because it is telling of the road we should think of taking: "E pluribus unum".

It is there with the Eagle on the Great Seal, and must be on your passport, meaning, "Out of many, one", making one from many, one unified nation from many cultures, races, backgrounds, beliefs, views; a single nation from a diversity of states; unity-in-diversity, and diversity-in-unity; what really i try to say here. This motto shall also work for the SW globally federated ontology. 
One can merge ontologies of different schemes, languages, scope, degree, granularity in several ways, like the different cultures in a society: 
a) multiculturalism (multi-ontologies, loose and free as birds or anarchists, like a bottom-up folksonomy, a people's taxonomy);
b) melting pot (mixing and amalgamating ontologies, like NeOn);
c) Monoculturism (absorbing all numerosity of ontologies into a single whole, like CYC);
d) Core culture (Leitkultur, a top-bottom globally federated ontology, call it "E pluribus unum semantic project").

Hope this cultural metaphor is of more use.
Azamat Abdoullaev

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Semantics-ProjectParadigm 
  To: Azamat ; Hugh Glaser 
  Cc: SW-forum 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: Federated Ontology System: was semantic technologies training/request

        A centralized unifying ontology system would be controlled by whom?

        The internet is by nature a decentralized collection of resources with varying degrees of (open) accessibility.

        As a fairly recent newcomer to this list it has become apparent that this issue is a much contested one.

        A centralized system would benefit those actors who require control like national security agencies, and non-democratic governments bent on controlling the freedom of speech and access to information of its (dissenting) citizens.

        Another group which would benefit greatly is the horde of malicious users of the internet.

        Mathematically speaking the sheer size of the internet and in particular the deeper layers make centralized schemes a technical impossibility.

        The W3C standards and similar standards should be used to develop tools that enable ever more categories of users to have semantic technology enabled open access to information.

        I am certain that the open source software community, open access community and open networks community would oppose any centralized schemes.

        And then there is the question of knowledge representation and modeling. As a mathematician with a passion for formal knowledge modeling I have found there is no such thing as a unified system for formal knowledge modeling.
        Some interesting articles have been written on how some fundamental theorems by Godel and Turing are applicable to the combined human knowledge represented by the internet.

        Add to this the fact that according to Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/), the human race speaks some 6, 912 living languages and my recent questions to this list about universal linguistic engines and tools for the semantic web yielded no satisfactory results, even if we had centralized ontology schemes. much of the human race would be left in the cold because the knowledge would not be accessible in their native language.

        Two years ago our organization tried to sell a project called 500 Languages for Creating Sustainable Development to the international community and were told that the sheer magnitude and scope of a project trying to create universal digital information tools for sustainable development in the 500 most spoken languages on earth would make it almost impossible both in human and financial resources.

        Personally I like the motto on the US coins because it is telling of the road we should think of taking: "E pluribus unum".

        Milton Ponson
        GSM: +297 747 8280
        Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
        PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
        Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
        Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide
        NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm
        MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development
        SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project

        --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

          From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
          Subject: Re: Federated Ontology System: was semantic technologies training/request
          To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
          Cc: "SW-forum" <semantic-web@w3.org>
          Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 11:59 AM

Thanks Azamat.I am trying to stay quite specific here.You are making some statements about how you think the Semantic Webshould/will work.You are supporting these statements by making assertions about othersystems, that may have relevance, but it is not always clear that youestablish what the relevance is.And you seem to be taking specific views of those other systems that wouldnot always win 100% agreement with experts in those fields.So I fail to see the value of your assertion that ”Like it or not, to orderand unify things, you need a central authority”, as you seem to make noarguments to support it that actually refer to the domain we are discussing.On 07/01/2009 11:43, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:> On Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:00 AM, Hugh wrote:> "We often
 reflect our political beliefs in our technical work; itdoesn't>  validate either. And if you were a Syndicalist Anarchist, you might seethe> Semantic Web> differently - but would that make your view any more correct?">> Dear Hugh,> It is funny how intelligent people may misread each other.> This is not the matter of your politics. It might be surprising, but the> words as notions tend to change their meanings, extending or narrowingtheir> senses, either by the processes of generalization or specialization, orby> spreading, or transference, or hyperbolizing, or by figurative extension.> Now, dealing with the terms 'to unite' or 'to unify' [webresources], one> have many connotations, as 'amalgamate, blend, cement, cohere,consolidate,> combine, compound, connect, federate, integrate, link, merge, fuse,join',> etc, but all with
 specific differences in meanings. What is good with> 'federate', it suggests 'the act of unifying of heterogenousand autonomous> entities under a central authority', which can be naturally extendedas a> 'central ontology".> Keeping in mind its political and data base meanings, we can talk about a> top-bottom globally federated ontology, having a flexible hierarchical> network topology; the star, the mesh, the loop, the bar are all their.> I have an impression that Enrico's NeOn scheme is mainly about themesh> ontology, a network their the component ontologies are directly to be> connected to every other element ontologies.That's just impossible inall> senses.> All the world works like this, any real entities are interconnected viathe> fundamental elements, principles and laws; in the physical world, it is> matter and energy, fundamental forces
 and interactions, gravitation,> electromagnetism, weak and strong forces.And to address the wider issue, which I know I should resist, but can't:I really don't see that referring to these principles and laws helps tosupport the statement you make in your next paragraph summing up, saying weneed a "central authority". I think electromagnetism seems to workprettywell without an obvious central authority.>> Summing:> Like it or not, to order and unify things, you need a central authority,in> the Globally Federated Ontology (GFO), it is a global scheme of all> resources, capable to integrate all sorts of particular schemes, data> models, and views. This most challenging problem is be the first focus of> any large-scale SW research projects, imho.> Regards,I'm not saying I think you are wrong, but I would be pleased to seearguments directly addressing the
 technological issues.RegardsHugh> Azamat Abdoullaev> http://www.eis.com.cy> [see how the idea of knowledge federation may work for sciences and> technology as well].>> ----- Original Message -----> From: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>; "EnricoMotta" <e.motta@open.ac.uk>> Cc: "SW-forum" <semantic-web@w3.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:00 AM> Subject: Re: Federated Ontology System: was semantic technologies> training/request>>>> 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 seethousands>>> and>>> thousands of alternative>>> conceptualizations. This is why the NeOn project is developing avariety>>> of>>> practical solutions>>> that focus on enabling the development, maintenance and use ofnetworked>>> 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 issueis, how>>> you>>> are doing the networking of domain ontologies.  What one read asa>>> definition: "A Network of Ontologies is a collection ofontologies>>> related>>> together via a variety of different relationships such asmapping,>>> 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 aninnumerable>>> number>>> of particular ontologies, distributed, autonomous andheterogeneous, with>>> their specific local schemas, semantics, languages, formats, datamodels,>>> and structures.>>> Seemingly, You had an impression that i suggested a centralized,unitary>>> ontology system governed by a single global schema. This is notthe case.>>> This matter is now also discussed on the Ontolog Forum. Some mainpoints.>>> I>>> am talking about a realistic, flexible and scalable model of afederated>>> (web) ontology [used in Ontopaedia, check the Index page,>>>
 http://www.eis.com.cy]. The model implies such effective notionsas>>> "ontology federation", "federated ontologysystem", "federated global>>> schema", 'federated ontology architecture", and"federated local>>> schemas".>>>  The notion of a federal union proved its viability in politics asa>>> federal>>> form of government, where power is divided between a centralauthority>>> and>>> regional authorities. Also, it was successfully applied in thedatabase>>> theory and practice, as "a federated architecture fordatabase 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
 hasbeen>> successful in the modern, open, web-enabled world.>> The difficulty that I have in publishing my database and have iteasily>> federate with other databases is a (the?) major motivator for SWwork.>>> Now, alike with the power, knowledge is divided between a central>>> ontology>>> and regional ontologies. Then a federation ontology will consistof a>>> single>>> central ontology (maintaining the global schema, the semantics,the>>> topology, the entry of new ontologies) and a multitude ofcomponent>>> ontologies with own>>> local schemas,  but members of the federation. There aretechnical>>> issues,>>> such as federated mechanism, semantic management, schemasintegration and>>> coordination, search, information retrieval and query
 processing,etc.>>> But>>> what is essential: the reality of the concept of FederatedOntology>>> System,>>> which, to my experience, looks more promising than any(botom-top)>>> nonfederated ontology systems, either unitary or centralized orloose and>>> unconnected, currently prevailing and propagating as pandemic onthe WWW.>> We often reflect our political beliefs in our technical work; itdoesn't>> validate either.>> And if you were a Syndicalist Anarchist, you might see the SemanticWeb>> 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 beingreleased 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 aslots 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-c>>>> on>>>> tent/.>>>> Being surprised with overwhelming ontological activities, oneis>>>> attracted>>>> to browse the project boasting that:>>>> "NeOn is a 14.7 million Euros project involving 14European partners and>>>> co-funded by the European Commission’s Sixth FrameworkProgramme under>>>> grant number IST-2005-027595. NeOn started in March 2006 andhas a>>>> duration>>>> of 4 years. Our aim is to advance the state of the art inusing>>>> ontologies>>>> for
 large-scale semantic applications in the distributedorganizations.>>>> Particularly, we aim at improving the capability to handlemultiple>>>> networked ontologies that exist in a particular context, arecreated>>>> collaboratively, and might be highly dynamic and constantlyevolving.">>>>>>>> Here is the NeOn basic defintion: "A Network ofOntologies is a>>>> collection>>>> of ontologies related together via a variety of differentrelationships>>>> such as mapping, modularization, version and  dependencyrelationships".>>>> Indeed, all fundamental troubles are in assumptions andpresumptions.>>>>>>> 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 Thursday, 8 January 2009 21:37:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC