- From: Yanosy John-QJY000 <jyanosy@motorola.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:33:50 -0600
- To: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0B0A39652BB0D411BCCF00508B9512EC06AA361E@tx14exm05.ftw.mot.com>
Are there not certain elements of knowledge that could indicate some aspects of trust for computer implementations, after an initial phase where some human evaluated dependent ontologies that were linked, imported, etc., into a new ontology? I only concern myself with determining the integrity of these ontologies. 1. It may be reasonable to assume that if there were no changes in related ontologies since the original evaluation, then the level of trust has not changed. 2. If there was a change in the related ontology the type of change may indicate the seriousness of the change: a) It might be useful to know if additional expressions were added. Would this not indicate that any original queries to any KB based on this ontology would still have the same results? And thus an application would not need to be changed that used this ontology. b) It might be useful to know if any well formed expression in the original ontology was modified in any way. This is more serious and probably indicates that an application using a KB would have to be evaluated. c) It might be useful to know if any expressions were deleted. Again this is serious and would indicate that an application would have to be evaluated and retested. d) it might be useful to know if its set of related ontologies were modified and if any of them had been changed in any way. The answer depends upon the form of change of the related ontology. e) it might be useful to know which expressions were changed, it might be possible for a system to then evaluate whether an application has any queries that would be impacted by this change. I don't know if this could be done at runtime or would require off line evaluation with the original tool used to create the integrated ontology, once an alert occurs. The results may indicate no impact on an application and thus no need to change or retest the application. e) there must be other changes in an ontology using OWL that do no necessarily change the results of queries by an application. 3. A simple unique signature could be created for each ontology at original creation time, and then incorporated as part of its meta data. Any time change occurs within any ontology, then the signatures could be compared. I think this is somewhat similar to the problem the software component industry faced with managing the use of different versions of software components? I believe that the solution used was to incorporate into software platforms a form of registration system that provided management functions for software components, especially alerting functions that indicated when a newer component may be replaced by an older version, and giving choices for selection among different versions of software components. Also in computer software virus detection techniques are not signatures used to identify and classify viruses as well as integrity of installed software. I suspect that integrity checks would be a good start, to at least enable automatic detection of changes in ontologies after an initial human evaluation phase. Nothing new here, but just a recognition that though this problem is much more complex, we should not ignore the minimal things that can be done to enable improvements. I am not sure if these only require meta data for an ontology, or specific language elements within an ontology language itself. Best Regards, John Yanosy Jr. Fellow of the Technical Staff 5555 N. Beach St., Ft. Worth, TX 76137-2794 Tel: 1-817-245-6665 Fax: 1-817-245-6580 2-Way Pager: 1-800-SKYTEL2, PIN:2456665
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 17:34:42 UTC