https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=OntologySummit2007_Survey/JohnSowa&feed=atom&action=historyOntologySummit2007 Survey/JohnSowa - Revision history2024-03-28T21:19:15ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.39.0https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=OntologySummit2007_Survey/JohnSowa&diff=101&oldid=previmported>KennethBaclawski: Fix PurpleMediaWiki references2016-01-09T08:00:18Z<p>Fix PurpleMediaWiki references</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>= [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]]: [[OntologySummit2007_Survey]] individual responses =<br />
<br />
== [[OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response]] input from [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]] ==<br />
<br />
'''''Please make sure you refer to the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] &amp; [[OntologySummit2007_Survey]] pages for the full context of the input. &nbsp;&nbsp;''''' <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Question 1 Respondant Info <br />
<br />
Name: John Sowa <br />
<br />
Question 2 Affiliated - <br />
I am affiliated with the following constituencies/communities (please check all that apply) <br />
<br />
[ ] Formal ontology communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Semantic Web communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Linguistic communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Concept Map community<br />
<br />
[ ] Topic Map community<br />
<br />
[ ] SEARCH communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Web 2.0 communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Thesauri community<br />
<br />
[ ] Taxonomy communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Metadata communities<br />
<br />
[ ] XML communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities<br />
<br />
[ ] System Architecture communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Biomedical communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Standards Development communities<br />
<br />
[ ] Other (please specify): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 2a Representing - <br />
I represent the perspective of the following constituency/community (please pick one; if you want to provide input from more than one perspective, please return a separate form): <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. Formal ontology communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. Semantic Web communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. Linguistic communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. Concept Map community<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. Topic Map community<br />
<br />
[ ] 6. SEARCH communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 7. Web 2.0 communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 8. Thesauri community<br />
<br />
[ ] 9. Taxonomy communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 10. Metadata communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 11. XML communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 12. Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 13. System Architecture communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 14. Biomedical communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 15. Standards Development communities<br />
<br />
[ ] 16. Other (please specify): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 2b Specific Community <br />
<br />
or sub-community I am affiliated with: (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 2c Expertise Self Assessment - <br />
With respect to the perspective you are representing and providing input from, I am a/an: <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. informed layman<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. practitioner<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. expert<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. other (please specify): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 3a Ontology Value - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 3b Ontology Issues - <br />
<br />
"Following is a slightly edited note that I sent to some colleagues, <br />
<br />
and it includes some discussions about issues that I believe are <br />
<br />
very important. I hope that it may answer some of the questions, <br />
<br />
but not in exactly the same categories as the questionnaire. And by <br />
<br />
the way, the central language in the diagram is Common Logic, but <br />
<br />
we are actually implementing the IKL extensions to CL, since we <br />
<br />
require the metalanguage capability of IKL. <br />
<br />
--John Sowa via e-mail / 28 Mar 2007 13:52:56 -0500 (EST)" <br />
<br />
Question 3c Ontology Problems - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 3d Corresponding Solutions - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4aGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: CL<br />
<br />
Gloss: Common Logic<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): http://cl.tamu.edu/<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): IKL<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4a1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4a2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"[Shown below (hyperlink)] is a .gif file, which may be useful <br />
<br />
to clarify the relationships among the various languages we <br />
<br />
have been discussing: <br />
<br />
1. At the top are the human interfaces: controlled<br />
<br />
natural languages in green and graphics in yellow.<br />
<br />
CLCE is our version of Controlled English, but we<br />
<br />
would encourage other people to develop other versions<br />
<br />
of controlled NLs and other versions of graphical<br />
<br />
interfaces. <br />
<br />
2. In the middle is Common Logic, which is the ISO standard.<br />
<br />
That is the hard interface to and from which all other<br />
<br />
languages are translated. Three dialects of Common Logic<br />
<br />
have been standardized by ISO, and they are shown in blue:<br />
<br />
CGIF (Conceptual Graph Interchange Format), CLIF (Common<br />
<br />
Logic Interchange Format), and XCL (an XML notation for<br />
<br />
Common Logic). <br />
<br />
3. At the bottom are logic-based languages used as machine<br />
<br />
interfaces. This is an open-ended list, but I included<br />
<br />
several as illustrations: SQL for relational databases,<br />
<br />
OCL for the UML Object Constraint Language, Prolog, Datalog,<br />
<br />
and the Semantic Web languages RDF(S), OWL, and [[RuleML]]. <br />
<br />
At present, we have implemented the translators to support three<br />
<br />
languages and the mappings between them: CLCE, CGIF, and Prolog.<br />
<br />
We intend to implement others as we get the time and funding to do<br />
<br />
so, but these three are the ones we are primarily using right now. <br />
<br />
> The most interesting aspect of your diagram is what it tells us<br />
<br />
> (and what it COULD tell us) about human cognition. What is it<br />
<br />
> that makes the human interfaces more readable and comprehensible<br />
<br />
> to humans than the machine interfaces? <br />
<br />
That is a good question, which involves many issues of linguistics,<br />
<br />
psychology, and human factors. We still do not have sufficient<br />
<br />
guidelines for determining what really makes languages and graphics<br />
<br />
readable and intelligible. <br />
<br />
For some aspects, such as the type hierarchy, graphics have been<br />
<br />
used as a supplement to logic since the Tree of Porphyry in the<br />
<br />
3rd century AD. But it's not clear how to increase the expressive<br />
<br />
power of the graphics without substantially reducing readability. <br />
<br />
The UML approach of having a half-dozen different kinds of diagrams<br />
<br />
is also interesting. Each one expresses a different view of aspects<br />
<br />
of the logic and ontology. It would be interesting to explore<br />
<br />
systematic ways of highlighting, zooming, and focusing on various<br />
<br />
aspects. <br />
<br />
> The distinction is all the more striking because the human<br />
<br />
> interfaces are "controlled" interfaces, capable of being<br />
<br />
> unambiguously mapped to strict common logic. So they lack some<br />
<br />
> of the richness, the ambiguity, the color, and the metaphor<br />
<br />
> of unrestricted natural languages. Nevertheless, they are<br />
<br />
> undeniably easier to read, expressed in more "human" terms,<br />
<br />
> than the machine interface languages. I imagine the reasons<br />
<br />
> for this difference have already been the subject of some<br />
<br />
> serious study in the literature, but I suspect that there is<br />
<br />
> room for considerably more. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the people who address human factors and those<br />
<br />
who focus on the expressive power of the logic are almost<br />
<br />
completely disjoint. Furthermore, the journals and funding<br />
<br />
agencies are partitioned in ways that have the effect of<br />
<br />
keeping the skills disjoint. <br />
<br />
> Parenthetically, I would SUSPECT that the distinction between<br />
<br />
> human interface languages and machine language interfaces<br />
<br />
> bears at least SOME relationship to the distinction between<br />
<br />
> good technical writing in natural language and bad technical<br />
<br />
> writing in natural language. <br />
<br />
I certainly agree. In fact, my view of the combination of<br />
<br />
CLCE with graphics is to approach the style of a well-written,<br />
<br />
freshman-level textbook in math or science. CLCE would express<br />
<br />
the precise definitions and axioms, the graphics tools would<br />
<br />
present the illustrations, and the comments would provide<br />
<br />
some of the background and motivation. At present, we are<br />
<br />
not processing the comments, but we might consider using the<br />
<br />
analogy engine to process the comments for help facilities<br />
<br />
and explanations. <br />
<br />
But there are many issues to be explored -- in human factors,<br />
<br />
computability, and logical expressivity. <br />
<br />
: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/reference/comlog--JohnSowa_20070328.gif" <br />
<br />
Question 4bGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4b1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4b2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4cGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4c1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4c2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4dGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4d1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4d2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4eGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4e1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4e2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4fGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4f1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4f2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4gGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss (definition): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4g1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4g2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 4hGlossary - <br />
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: <br />
<br />
Term: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Gloss: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Reference (citation/url): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Artifact (name/version): (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
- Artifact Ref. (url): (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
Question 4h1 Called An Ontology - <br />
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? <br />
<br />
[ ] 1. 1 - totally unlikely<br />
<br />
[ ] 2. 2 - rarely<br />
<br />
[ ] 3. 3 - sometimes<br />
<br />
[ ] 4. 4 - quite often<br />
<br />
[ ] 5. 5 - almost always <br />
<br />
Question 4h2 Additional Remarks - <br />
<br />
"(Not Answered)" <br />
<br />
Question 5 Confirm Participation - where, <br />
<br />
a 'convener' is a participant who provides substantive contribution to the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] <br />
<br />
initiative (through the online discourse, this survey, and other events leading to or during <br />
<br />
the workshops and the written communique process), and <br />
<br />
a 'co-sponsor' is an organization who is providing technical or funding support (e.g. supporting <br />
<br />
member(s) of its technical staff to participate as a 'convener'), and/or endorsing the objective <br />
<br />
of this [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]], <br />
<br />
[ ] I agree that my name can be listed as a 'convener' of [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]]<br />
<br />
[ ] I will consider endorsing the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] communique. Please send it to me for <br />
<br />
review when it is ready. I will confirm my endorsement after the review.<br />
<br />
[ ] I confirm that you may list my organization as a 'co-sponsor' for <br />
<br />
[[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] (details below). <br />
<br />
Question 5a Co-Sponsor confirmation: <br />
<br />
Organization Name: (Not Answered)<br />
<br />
Link (url) to Logo: (Not Answered) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:WorkSpace]] [[Category:OntologySummit]] [[Category:OntologySummit2007]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>imported>KennethBaclawski