From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search

I do like the Gutierrez and Sequeda approach of:

1) A short characterization of the issue of using technology to realize value from Data and Knowledge (we could use a ‘semantic technology value proposition’ graph and John’s hexagon);

2) Then have ‘decades’, with something like their accomplishments and foci followed by ‘realizations’ and ‘limitations’;

They cover ‘Data’, ‘Knowledge’, and ‘Knowledge + Data’. That’s a good start at articulating the elements, but it should go a little farther. In particular,

1) It conflates the conceptual knowledge or theory about a domain necessary for an agent to operate in a way an observer would deem ‘intelligent’ (Newell’s criterion as emphasized by Musen) with the logical theory used to *formalize* the knowledge into a formal theory so it can be validated and a machine can operate on it.

2) Along with that conflation, they don’t emphasize enough the software/agent/program/algorithm that will use the cleaned/organized/processed data as an inseparable complement (dual?) to the data. As David Eddy just wrote in his email to Ram, “data doesn’t exist without software”. This software hare a strong logical aspect, but it is not identical to logic.

3) John’s (and his other presentations) can help us think about how to frame the elements of the history in a way that ends up with CLIP and DOL as the KG/ontologies state of the art.

4) We do need to work on a characterization of ontology beyond what John has there as “ Ontology is a catalog of words and the kinds of things they refer to.”


Notes from 20200623 1) Possible inclusions from john’s graphics

MOF Ikris project

2) Also

3) Understanding the history requires understanding the adversarial reality of standards development (large vs small commercial interests and lock-in; academics/theorists with different specialization, etc. - primitives vs space cadets)

4) Semantic Web taken over by theoreticians, DL group

5) European/Extended Semantic Web conference

6) Ontologies as conceptual schema: SRKB, etc., research died after the semantic web gave us OWL, and that’s ontologies

7) Joseph Goguen “Throwing Algebraic Flowers …” paper; Till Mossakowski’s work. (Message for applied category theorists from JS “They either hang together or they’ll hang separately”)