Sunday, February 12, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
n-articulated ontological framework
On using RDF to model web services
Link back to part of the “solution” to translations between
RDF / OWL and Models of Information -> [167]
Sub-theme
n-articulated
ontological framework
[168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [next topic]
Rebecca,
First a review of the discussion between you and Thomas so far... and then some questions and comments.
You said
" I mentioned that The Cancer Bioinformatics Grid (caBIG)... has a ISO/IEC 111179 compliant registry that links Data Element Concepts, Valid Values, Representation Terms, and other administered components to concepts in a DL (Descriptive Logic) based ontology - NCI Thesaurus. NCI has made some extensions to the ISO/IEC standard - which I think they have proposed back to the standards organization for linking to an ontology in this fashion."
On the link you provided
http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/NCICB/infrastructure/cacore_overview/cadsr
It is mentioned that
The caCORE objects are represented by UML Models.
Question: but is UML a Descriptive Logic ontology? I would not be surprised if DL can be, is, applied to UML elements. This has not been done, however. Right?
But, as in the well defined vocabulary of the OSI 11179, the vocabulary of UML is not (in my understanding) set up perfectly to arrange concepts into hierarchical inheritance trees with logical "axioms" asserting inferential properties such an transitive and reflective assignments, as well as the class sub-class definitions. (I hope I said that ok.) In fact this translation issue is a big deal right now. Right?
You mention an almost complete paper, you are working on, describing "semantic linkage". And by "semantic linkage" you mean precisely a mapping from the 11179 to a DL based logic (say Protege Frames (CLIPS) or OWL).
As you might know, I (and others) would express some concern about the use of the language “semantic linkage”, as the real task is structural interoperability between finite state machines. Right? The assignment of meaning comes after one has data and process interoperability between computer programs.
Meaning is properly applied to fixed intended interpretations, of course this is true, but a deeper connotation for the term "meaning" comes only with differential interpretation and in this case the DL ontologies have both practical and theoretical problems with computability, as has been pointed out by many. I hope I am being clear and non-controversial in pointing this out.
You ask Thomas
"if what you are
proposing is to actually implement the ISO standard as a frame system in
protege - I think that would be very useful"
Question 2: what is the DL based ontology that you mentioned. How is it, the ontology language, now used to link, (semantically link?) the ISO/IEC 11179 standard to? Is this not Protege Frames? Is it UML equipped with logic? I am unclear about what you are talking about.
Question 3: When one is talking about ISO 11170 compliance, what does this mean precisely (to you)?
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/PubliclyAva
ilableStandards.htm
lists the many ISO standards.
the 11170 has six parts (around 400 pages)..
Fortunately there is a lot of repetition in these parts and within those pages.
In reading through these pages, I was very impressed with the degree to which (certain types of) data standardization could be achieved within this standard. It is comprehensive and clear.
I am working on a "semantic linkage", to use the phase as you intended it, between OASIS SOA-IM where again a quite general understanding of a data-modeling framework is available. Service Oriented Architecture Information Model is far simpler that the 11179, but the key issues are almost the same.
One of the Protege forum contributors, Andrea, made a very proper suggestion (not that I knew what was proper until I read his note)
I was searching for an answer (in fact I was also searching to ask the question correctly), when a stranger (but now a friend) just nailed it!
I should say, not that it makes a lot of immediate difference, that Andrea's use of the term "non-monotonic" is narrow. Non-monotonic often means not only does new information override previous assertions of truth but it does so in a way in which the location of that which is over written is uncertain. But this narrow definition of non-monotonic is wonderfully useful in doing as much as possible to make structural mappings between things UML, 11179, and SIA-IM like to things that are like OWL and Protege Frames (ie the Descriptive Logic type ontologies).
I would appreciate general comments and corrections to my opinions, as we are all trying to do something that is not fully understood. So I (as we all will) make mistakes.