[crm-sig] [Fwd: RE: [dolce] A question about collections]
martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Dec 9 12:53:02 EET 2005
This may find your interest.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [dolce] A question about collections
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:02:12 +0100
From: Aldo Gangemi <gangemi at mac.com>
Reply-To: dolce at yahoogroups.com
To: pcassidy at mitre.org, dolce at yahoogroups.com
CC: d.pisanelli at istc.cnr.it, g.steve at istc.cnr.it, ontac-forum at colab.cim3.net
References: <6ACD6742E291AF459206FFF2897764BE697A13 at IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG>
Dear Pat, in 1997-1999 the current Rome group of LOA (Ontology and
Conceptual Modelling Group of ITBM-CNR at that time) had made a UMLS-SN
alignment (actually not only an alignment, because several strategies
have been applied to import "types", "relationships", informal
"templates", and to axiomatize the glosses) to an ontology (ON9) partly
similar to DOLCE.
The original Ontolingua code including ON9 and the medical plugin based
on the UMLS-SN alignment are at this URL: http://www.loa-cnr.it/medicine/.
Some publications about that work as well as the re-engineering of the
Metathesaurus can be downloaded from the LOA site.
Consider that a previous version of ON9 had been used by Teknowledge in
the development of SUMO.
I've considered porting ON9 medical section under DOLCE, so if someone
is doing the work, that can be highly facilitated by looking at what we
have done. We could also provide some assistance.
PS a copy of the paper separately to you
At 19:09 -0500 22-11-2005, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
> I would also like to get a copy of your paper.
> The ONTACWG I mentioned previously
> is> discussing a group effort to compare upper ontologies by doing a
> formalization of the UMLS Semantic Network with respect to each of the
> upper ontologies of interest to members -- OpenCyc, DOLCE, SUMO, BFO,
> ISO 15926. The suggestion is that by trying this kind of
> formalization on a restricted size ontology (The UMLS-SN had 1230
> classes and 54 semantic relations), a volunteer group like the ONTACWG
> might be able to collect useful information on just how different
> these upper ontologies are and whether a merger is feasible. We still
> have no funding. I do hope that if we can make some meaningful
> progress on this limited effort, we may be able to attract funding
> from some source.
> If anyone on the DOLCE list knows of similar efforts, I would
> appreciate being kept aware so as to avoid duplicative effort. Our
> effort is, as I mentioned, is fully open to participation from any
> source, and the results will be public domain or freely usable with
> attributions of sources (e.g. Cyc or SUMO or DOLCE).
> Patrick Cassidy
> MITRE Corporation
> 260 Industrial Way
> Eatontown, NJ 07724
> Mail Stop: MNJE
> Phone: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> Fax: 732-578-6012
> Email: pcassidy at mitre.org
> From: dolce at yahoogroups.com [mailto:dolce at yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Aldo Gangemi
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:46 PM
> To: dolce at yahoogroups.com; Gilles Kassel
> Cc: oltramari at loa-cnr.it; ferrario at loa-cnr.it; catenacci at loa-cnr.it
> Subject: Re: [dolce] A question about collections
> Hi Gilles,
> thanks a lot for your remarks. We were aware of the problem,
> because we had assumed constitution in a different, larger meaning
> at the time of the report you are referring to.
> We have now a different solution, implemented in a new article,
> which does not use either dependency or constitution from DOLCE.
> Instead, it uses cognitive schemas as an intuitive basis for
> introducing membership.
> I'm sending you the article separately. For those in the DOLCE
> list that are interested too, please contact me.
> Some more comments inside.
> At 9:23 +0100 21-11-2005, Gilles Kassel wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I read with great interest the paper entitled "From Collective
>> Intentionnality to Intentional Collectives: an Ontological
>> Perspective" (a submitted paper available on DOLCE's publications
>> page). Actually I would like to reuse this conceptualization to
>> reconstruct an ontology of organizations that we recently
>> proposed at LaRIA (Amiens, France) with a PhD student. My
>> objective is also to integrate this conceptualization in the
>> ontological resources of the OntoSpec methodology (see the
>> technical report about OntoSpec on DOLCE's site). However, the
>> way the first layer of the proposal is defined, that is the
>> notion of collection, seems to me raising a problem, notably in
>> its articulation with DOLCE.
> On one hand, it is recalled that in DOLCE « relations between
> instances of the same category are admitted, such as part,
> constitution, connectedness, etc." And, indeed, the axioms
> Ad21 and Ad22 published in (Masolo et al., 2003) say that
> "physical (respectively non-physical) endurants constitute,
> and have for constituents, only physical (respectively
> non-physical) endurants".
>> In this paper, on another hand, collections are defined as social
>> objects, therefore as non-physical endurants, and the membership
>> relation as a constitution relation. And, in the same time, it is
>> claimed that physical endurants can constitute a collection:
>> "Endurants constituting a collection are either
>> mereotopologiccaly unconnected (e.g., statues in a statuary) or
>> weakly connected (e.g., a pile of plates)".
>> Therefore, if the constitution relation is the same as DOLCE's
>> one, and I guess it is the case, there is clearly a contradiction.
> Correct, as I was saying, we had assumed constitution in a more
> tolerant sense, dealing with so-called "stratification", so that
> social entities can "emerge" out of physical ones. The current
> restriction for "generic constitution" in the OWL version of
> DOLCE-Lite-Plus is indeed different from the S5 version of full DOLCE.
> In an attempt to fully axiomatized the tolerant notion of
> constitution, we have encountered some interesting properties of
> emergence: for example, it seems that constitution can be kept
> compliant with DOLCE axioms if we assume that the emergent
> collection is constituted by the *information content* of the
> members, and not directly by the members. An appropriate chain of
> relations allows to refer to members anyway.
> Anyway, such notion of constitution needs more work, and after
> all, does not make justice to the "basic" intuition of a
> collection, one the most important patterns acquired during
> cognitive development. For the time being we then decided to adopt
> a cognitive schema, formalized in an appropriate way (see article).
>> In a first attempt to extend DOLCE to build an ontology of
>> organizations, we tried to reuse the notions of agentive-group
>> and unitary-collection of (Masolo et al., 2003) defined as
>> physical objects. However, we met some problems: i) firstly, the
>> lack of a generic notion of collection and the difficulty to
>> propose one ; ii) secondly, the fact that when members of a group
>> (or a collection) are geographically dispersed, considering the
>> whole as a physical object seems not tenable ; iii) lastly, the
>> axiom Ad29, relating the part and constitution relations, seems
>> too strong if we interpret a sub-group (or a sub-collection) as
>> being a part of a group (or a collection): indeed, if x is a
>> member of a group (or a collection) y and y' is a sub-group (or
>> sub-collection) of y not containing x then no x' being part of x
>> and constituting y' will existŠ
> The proposition made in this paper has (from my opinion) some
> advantages, in particular concerning the points i) and ii)
> above. However, I guess that it contradicts the axiom Ad22.
> Moreover, I still have problems concerning the axiom Ad29. If,
> for instance, the technical staff and the commercial staff of
> a society are considered as parts of the staff, then, for the
> reasons mentioned above, it is easy to find counter-models for
> Ad29 is also at odds with the tolerant notion of constitution (not
> exactly for the reason you indicate btw), in fact, it would imply
> that, if Gilles is a member of a staff, its leg should be a
> constituent of a part of that staff. And this makes no sense. As I
> said, we were thinking about a Hartmann-like notion of emergence,
> not about DOLCE's one, but this fact is wrongly described in the
> old report. In the new one, consitution is no more used.
>> I take advantage of this mail to raise a last a last question.
>> The fact of defining collections as social objects, and not as
>> non-physical endurants in general, excludes private collections
>> that would be embodied in physical agentives as mental objects.
>> Is there a particular reason for this exclusion?
> Mental objects are underdeveloped even in the DOLCE-Lite-Plus
> version. We are actively working on integrating social and mental
> objects. BTW, I don't see any problem in having collections of
> mental objects, despite the fact that collections are social objects.
> By "social" we mean something that can be communicated (in
> principle), and relies on some encoding. By "mental" we try to
> catch something that is not necessarily communicable. But a
> collection is by definition communicable, because it is a
> reification of an (extensional) class, which is an abstract
> entity, then it stands on an encoding system.
> One could wonder if there exists something which is collective but
> exclusively mental, i.e. non-communicable. We haven't gone so far
> yet. We are still investigating on the possibility that there are
> mental objects as a disjoint class from social ones. If one
> decides not, your problem disappears.
> Notice that we are not trying to be prescriptive on what is mental
> or not, but we need to understand on which grounds something can
> be claimed to be mental without being social (and of course
> without being a physical neurobiological process or object).
> Philosophy of mind has spent substantial resources in the attempt
> to solve the problem ...
> I suppose Alessandro Oltramari, Roberta Ferrario, and Carola
> Catenacci have probably more beef about these issues.
> Still thanks for the great questions.
> Aldo Gangemi
> Research Scientist
> Laboratory for Applied Ontology
> Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
> National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
> Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
> Tel: +390644161535
> Fax: +390644161513
> aldo.gangemi at istc.cnr.it
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Science fair projects
> Science projects
> Computer science
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> * Visit your group "dolce
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dolce>" on the web.
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dolce-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:dolce-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
aldo.gangemi at istc.cnr.it
Science fair projects
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "dolce <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dolce>" on
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
dolce-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<mailto:dolce-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
More information about the Crm-sig