Re: Upper ontologies

On 1/12/21 2:22 AM, Neil McNaughton wrote:
> Does this not imply that every time you move up a level in an ontology there are "different points of view have advantages and disadvantages". If an upper level ontology is impossible, why are levels top-1, top-2 etc. doable?


Science and society are in constant flux. Meaning is an emerging and 
evolving property of (human) cognition both on the individual and 
societal level. Put differently, meaning is in our heads, not in the 
world. Meaning cannot be fixed in ontologies. Instead, ontologies aim at 
restricting the interpretation of domain terminology towards their 
intended meaning. Such restriction aims to maximize semantic 
interoperability, i.e., to minimize cases where parties exchange 
information that seems valid on a syntactic level but where the expected 
semantics of the target does not match the semantics of the source.

Once we leave the ground of concrete domains and their tasks, we lose 
the context that helps restrict a domain's terminology and a sense for 
the required quality of this restriction, e.g., the choice of axioms. As 
a result, top-level ontology becomes metaphysics - useful, but not 
easily ground-able. One top-level ontology may declare that there are 
two disjoint kinds: objects and events. A second such ontology may 
declare that 'objects are just very slowly evolving events'. You can 
select the one you prefer, but none of them is wrong. It is also often 
unclear when and why one would have to restrict the interpretation of 
terminology for a certain, concrete task, e.g., data retrieval, by going 
all the way up the abstraction hierarchy.

Personally, I often search for measurement types and face the semantic 
interoperability challenge that two different measurement procedures go 
by the same name. I rarely search for things that are 'substances', 
'occurrences', or 'forms'. All that said, I fully understand the 
intellectual joy of designing and studying these top-level ontologies, 
but I see their use in providing us with answers to the big questions of 
what can be said and which distinctions make sense and less on the level 
of actionable theories.

Jano


>
> Best regards,
> Neil McNaughton
> Editor Oil IT Journal – www.oilit.com
> The Data Room SAS
> 7 Rue des Verrieres
> 92310 Sevres, France
> Landline+33146239596
> Cell+33672712642
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomas Horsch <horsch@inprodat.de>
> Sent: Monday, 11 January 2021 17:04
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Upper ontologies
>
> Dear Mikael,
>
> four reasons. The first one applies to all standardization, and to all metadata standards, not only top-level ontologies, and it is simply that multiple concurrent development efforts exist. Here, as in many cases, there is no authority that can enforce the uptake of a single standard.
>
> Second: By selecting a top-level ontology, you commit yourself to a philosophical position on what sort of things can exist in the world.
> Unsurprisingly, it is impossible - and undesirable - to make everybody accept the same point of view. Also, different points of view have advantages and disadvantages depending on what exactly you want to do.
>
> Third: It is also not a major problem. At the level of domains of knowledge, there will always be semantic heterogeneity, or in other words, multiple domain ontologies will be in use at least in some domains. Therefore, solutions addressing this heterogeneity need to be co-developed with any major innovation in data management anyway.
>
> Fourth: Once a top-level ontology has been developed, it can never disappear. Even if most of the community recommended one of them, the others would still be around, and people would be able to use them.
>
> Best wishes,
> Martin
>
> On 11/01/2021 16:40, Mikael Pesonen wrote:
>> Maybe this is a stupid question but why is there (at the moment) 17
>> different upper ontologies:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
>>
>> Isn't the idea to make just one that everyone can use?
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2021 16:52:00 UTC