[Fwd: Re: [seek-kr-sms] ontology/folder UI design in Kepler]
Mark Schildhauer
schild at nceas.ucsb.edu
Tue Mar 1 15:10:40 PST 2005
Hi folks,
Since my name has come up, I guess I should join this snowball fight.
For the KR side, I consider the main players inside the SEEK/BEAM
context to be Shawn, Deana, and me (and in the past, Rich, and at some
point in the relatively near future, Rich's replacement). Serguei and
Ferdinando are also working away at highly relevant aspects with GrOWL
and their experiences with domain ontologies, as are Peter and Manu for
the spatiotemporal stuff.
I think things are progressing on all fronts. Yes-- we absolutely will
be attempting to construct ontologies at the upcoming Davis meeting. We
have attempted to construct them at past meetings as well. We have
wrestled with the formalisms and tools necessary to create these
ontologies, from both the KE side, as well as the domain side. We've
tried out a bunch of tools (isaviz, protege, metalog, growl,
code/cmap)-- and have most recently been using Protege' on the formal
side (for KE/KR experts), and CMAP on the domain side (informal concept
modeling). We have a number of formal ontologies already in hand-- our
KR person, Rich, constructed over a dozen of these, and they reside in
CVS. Ferdinando and Serguei similarly have ontologies available on
their home site.
Deana has boldly constructed several "informal" ontologies using
CODE/CMAP, which Shawn has reviewed. These are challenging the notion
that napkin-sketch ontologies are what we need. Shawn has found that
Deana's concept maps raise interesting issues and concerns relative to
subsumption hierarchies from a formal side, whereas I look at them and
see the points and feel they have heuristic value.
We are explicitly developing ontologies for productivity and
biodiversity, as these tie-in with the BEAM use case. Our meeting next
week at Davis will focus on this. Specific challenges that ontologies
in this context will help address include data transformations on the
one hand (compatibility of data sets, tracking the semantics of data
transformation, etc.), enabling powerful data discovery via ontologies
(e.g., a query on biodiversity reveals a data set with counts of
taxonomically labelled information), and tie-ins with Kepler for
workflows and analyses (e.g., biodiversity indicates some specific
algorithms such as Shannon Index, that in turn requires certain types of
data to calculate).
Moreover, with our other use case on Ecological Niche Modeling, we have
developed some rough ontologies, though there utility there is not as
pressing as with our second use case (described above) which was
specifically chosen because it presented interesting opportunities on
the KR/SMS front. We did identify an interesting perspective that in
some forms of scientific debate (in this case, among Terry Dawson and
some of his colleagues) it may be the case that developing formal
ontologies will clarify the fundamental differences in (terms, concepts,
relationships) that are actually fueling the disagreement. We intend
to follow up on this in our copious free time.
Shawn and Rich drafted an Eco-ontology manual, which Shawn, Deana and I
have discussed a fair bit, most recently in terms of some papers by
Guarino and Welty on how to create "sensible" ontologies (ONTOCLEAN
technique)-- but things are not simple, as this task requires
understanding concepts like essence, rigidity, unity, and identity.
Shawn and I have recently been grappling with how to distill and present
these concepts to ecologists. Philosophy 101, anyone?
Shawn has been engaged with the Kepler community to keep things honest
in terms of whatever style ontologies we develop out of KR/SMS, these
won't be incompatible and indeed, will be powerfully exposed through
Kepler. Shawn has also been involved with some discussion about a
repository for these ontologies in terms of the Ecogrid (correct me if
I'm out of line, here).
We are trusting that Manu Juyal and Peter McCartney are thinking about
and progressing with a spatio-temporal ontology, and we expect to get an
update on this at the Davis meeting from Manu.
Shawn, Matt, and I have been discussing the units dictionary aspect of
the EML, especially since this is where we have a challenge with an
ontology like "units dictionary" that has conversion factors, and
tie-ing these in with EML metadata (currently at the attribute level).
There have been some in-depth discussion of these matters recently on
IRC, as these impact our entire strategy for how to focus on annotating
metadata (and hence data),and linking these up with ontologies. I think
the unit dictionary is a clear-cut and simple case for hooking up an
ontology to our metadata, and we should really be focusing on
developing a general mechanism through this test case (and I think
Shawn, Peter, Matt and others feel similarly)
The paper that was jointly submitted to SSDBM on SMS (Shawn has the ref)
promises a lot of capabilities within the SEEK framework, so for those
who want to know where we are going, that is a good place to check.
Peter has recently raised the possiblity that some LTER Information
Managers could become involved with the KR effort to extent of
clarifying "canonical" variables collected across research sites on
standard data sets, and this is a *great* idea. Still, we want to be
sure these efforts are maximally leveraged in terms of building into a
useful and compatible framework. It is not trivial to say "... and
we'll just make some OWL-DL ontologies that will work great". Hey, Rich
created a bucketload of OWL ontologies, and we are still struggling with
how to even visualize these in an effective way, much less navigate and
understand them.
Finally, I want to clarify this notion of Knowledge Engineer, which I
know sends shivers down Shawn's spines cause he envisions himself as the
designatee for this role. I think it more likely that it would be
folks like me, Deana, or some other "domain" scientist, for if those of
us in ecology with reasonable intelligence and lots of interest can't
deal with ontology creation, I agree with Shawn that it is not a
scalable, nor achievable goal for SEEK's vision. So our big challenge
is addressing several and ideally all the above areas, and it is clearly
challenging.
BTW, I will also add that some of the most fertile brainstorming has
been appearing on IRC, so it is highly recommended that folks monitor
that channel. And, if as it appears, KR/SMS/BEAM issues are heating up,
perhaps we need a dedicated channel for that, just as kepler has its own.
Sorry I was late in adding my two cents.
Cheers,
Mark
Deana D. Pennington wrote:
>Gee, I thought Mark and you (as KR and SMS leads) were responsible for this :-)
> We'll see what the project manager says... My sense of it is that no one
>really has a good feel for what, explicitly, is needed. I am hoping that as we
>look at actual datasets in Davis, we can start making a list of the things that
>are needed, and maybe sketch out some frameworks. Like I said, I can recruit
>people to help fill in the details once I know what is needed.
>
>I don't think there is anything necessarily to "be done about" the concepts I've
>worked on. I think Mark and Shawn have seen most things that I've done. They
>were all done in cmap; they are too general to be appropriate for linking data
>to, except perhaps at a high discovery level. I'll bring everything to Davis,
>so we'll have it if it becomes useful in some way.
>
>Deana
>
>
>
>Quoting Bertram Ludaescher <ludaesch at ucdavis.edu>:
>
>
>
>>Deana:
>>
>>This is a good idea, ie, put some time aside at the Davis meeting to
>>do some (initial) ontology creation.
>>
>>However one thing that confuses me: who is (on the domain side!)
>>providing the leadership on what ontologies are being developed!?
>>
>>Let me ask the project manager ;-)
>>
>>Matt:
>>Who is in charge of determining what community ontologies are needed
>>for SEEK? A measurement ontology is a nice case study, but what do the
>>scientists need to get more science done?
>>
>>Deana: I haven't seen what you sent earlier. Can you (re-?)send to
>>SEEK-kr-sms and we can see what can be done about it?
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>Bertram
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Deana D. Pennington writes:
>> >
>> > This sounds simple, but only 2 weeks ago I put together some biomass
>>terms in a
>> > hierarchical way that I thought made sense, and Shawn completely
>>changed the way
>> > it was organized (you'll have to get the details from him...it was
>>all I could
>> > do to follow his logic :-) So, the problem is that the simple
>>examples never
>> > seem to fit when you sit down to do these things. Perhaps once we
>>get a fairly
>> > good set of basic concepts into the ontology, maybe it'll be this
>>simple. I'm
>> > hoping that we will work through some examples in Davis, because no,
>>BEAM (that
>> > would be me) is not constructing ontologies on their (my) own. I
>>looked at
>> > Rich's ontologies this summer, and played with some concept maps for
>>the
>> > biodiversity case, but I think we need to be much more explicit about
>>what is
>> > needed. I could (and have) spent a good deal of time coming up with
>>things that
>> > aren't particularly useful. The only meetings that BEAM is now
>>having are in
>> > conjunction with other teams (like the KR/SMS/BEAM meeting in Davis),
>>so if you
>> > want ecologists to develop these, you need to work it in the agenda.
>>If we get
>> > to the point where I have a good sense of exactly what ontologies are
>>needed,
>> > then I would be happy to recruit some ecologists for a working
>>meeting focused
>> > on ontology generation, as long as there is someone there who can
>>ensure that
>> > what we come up with fits the formal requirements.
>> >
>> > Deana
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting Bertram Ludaescher <ludaesch at ucdavis.edu>:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Hi Deana et al:
>> > >
>> > > I guess it's a good time to chime in now, including to throw in
>>some
>> > > thoughts from a KE and SEEK SMS (and KR) point of view =B-)
>> > >
>> > > First, the intuitive ontology tool that Deana asked about is
>>already
>> > > there (although Shawn and I haven't done a particular good job of
>> > > making it available yet). It's the goose feather, oops, I meant
>>the
>> > > Sparrow language ;-)
>> > >
>> > > Here is what we had in mind: in our context, creating
>>domain-specific
>> > > ontologies is primarily about defining controlled vocabularies.
>>We
>> > > might use fancy GUIs for it, or just the keyboard to type in the
>> > > controlled vocabulary terms:
>> > > measurement.
>> > > species_abundance.
>> > > biodiversity_index.
>> > > biomass_measurement.
>> > >
>> > > ok, you can see how a keyboard is useful for entering controlled
>> > > vocabulary terms (unlike, e.g., a mouse). From this to a "formal"
>> > > ontology (at least in the sense used earlier in this thread) it is
>>a
>> > > small step. E.g., you might want to say that
>> > >
>> > > "biomass measurements are measurements"
>> > >
>> > > Then we should be able to say just that. In fact that's almost
>>valid
>> > > Sparrow syntax; exactly we would write (note the small
>>differences):
>> > >
>> > > biomass_measurement ISA measurement.
>> > >
>> > > This is human readable, easy to enter, edit, exchange and parse
>>as
>> > > well. Oh, and it can be translated easily into OWL so that other
>>tools
>> > > can work with it.
>> > >
>> > > A slightly more complex example is:
>> > >
>> > > "biomass measurements are measurements that only measure
>>biomass"
>> > >
>> > > In Sparrow (goose feather ;-) syntax we would have to slightly
>>tweak
>> > > this into the following form:
>> > >
>> > > biomass_measurement ISA measurement AND item_measured ONLY
>>biomass.
>> > >
>> > > So what Shawn meant earlier about "formal ontologies" is this level
>>of
>> > > refinement/sophistication that we are after. The good thing about
>>the
>> > > notation above (as opposed to just nodes and arrow diagrams) is
>>that
>> > > these statements can be translated into OWL (or directly
>>first-order
>> > > logic) and provide some constraints about how a biomass
>>measurement
>> > > relates to measurements in general, what is being measured etc.
>> > >
>> > > We also need to keep in mind, as was mentioned earlier, that
>>ontology
>> > > creation is not what the typical end user of Kepler should be
>>doing.
>> > > Ontologies are meant to be created by the *scientific community*
>>(in
>> > > this case ecologists) using specialized tools and this process is
>> > > often done in concert with the (in)famous KE / KR/CS types
>> > > who can provide additional tools to check the consistency of so
>> > > defined
>> > > ontologies, visualize the inferred class hierarchy etc.
>> > >
>> > > But the (passed around) buck does stop there: at the willingness
>>of
>> > > the community to actually come up with controlled vocabularies
>>and
>> > > simple, but somewhat formal (in the above sense) ontologies.
>> > > So I think we do need to create more of those ontologies. Isn't
>>BEAM
>> > > doing that? Or who else? Someone should.. we can certainly help.
>> > >
>> > > Let's also see how Kepler and ontologies and all that good stuff
>> > > relates (some of this was suggested before, eg. by Laura):
>> > >
>> > > - Kepler is NOT the primary tool to develop, change, update
>> > > ontologies. For that there is GrOWL, Protege, and yes Sparrow
>>(it's
>> > > built into any OS.. we just need to send you again the simple
>>grammar)
>> > >
>> > > - Kepler should have mechanisms to *annotate* actors (as a
>>whole),
>> > > their ports, and datasets. This should normally NOT require changes
>>to
>> > > the ontology. Rather one would simply *select* concept names from
>>one
>> > > of possibly several pre-defined community ontologies (importing
>> > > different ontologies into Kepler should be easy)
>> > >
>> > > - For expert users only: If you feel that you need to define a
>>new
>> > > concept on top of an existing ontology, you should be able to do
>>that
>> > > as well from Kepler. Clearly, you are not updating the community
>> > > ontology (there is a "protocol" for the latter, one needs
>>endorsement
>> > > from a consortium such as "Eco-GO" ;-) but rather you are adding
>>to
>> > > your "private ontology extensions" much like you would add new
>>words
>> > > to your private dictionary in Word ("Add foobar to your private
>> > > ontology (y/n)?"). My earlier suggestion would be to be able to
>>define
>> > > a new concept in this way, e.g.
>> > >
>> > > my_measurement ISA biomass_measurement AND hasLocation davis.
>> > >
>> > > Then my_measurement and davis might be new concepts which are added
>>to
>> > > my personal ontology (along with the Sparrow statement/axiom
>>above),
>> > > whereas the other terms come from the existing ontology.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > OK, so much for now.
>> > >
>> > > cheers and laters
>> > >
>> > > Bertram
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Deana D. Pennington writes:
>> > > >
>> > > > Shawn,
>> > > >
>> > > > I think we can use our own experiences to clarify what an
>>ecologist
>> > > might or
>> > > > might not be able to do, at least in the near term. In the few
>>times
>> > > that I've
>> > > > tried to organize a set of terms into an "ontology" for you, and
>>in
>> > > the times
>> > > > I've watched the postdocs/faculty try to do it, none of us have
>>ever
>> > > given you
>> > > > anything remotely close to what you needed. That's definitely
>>a
>> > > concern, if
>> > > > we're going to have the ecologists do it themselves. I honestly
>>don't
>> > > think
>> > > > you're going to get what you want from most ecologists without
>> > > substantial
>> > > > training. I think the likelihood of them going after such
>>training
>> > > is small.
>> > > > Its telling that many of the people at this last workshop took
>> > > offense when I
>> > > > suggested that it would be a good idea for them to learn how
>>to
>> > > program...and
>> > > > the usefulness of that should have been much more obvious to
>>them
>> > > than the
>> > > > usefulness of creating ontologies. I think we are a long way
>>from
>> > > having a
>> > > > community of ecologists who have the skills or desire to
>>invest
>> > > considerable
>> > > > effort learning how to do this. Perhaps eventually we will
>>develop a
>> > > community
>> > > > of ecoinformatics people who are more on the domain side than
>>the IT
>> > > side, who
>> > > > can learn how to do this and work at the interface. For the
>>short
>> > > term, I don't
>> > > > see any way around having a "knowledge engineer" work with the
>> > > ecologists. But,
>> > > > I reserve the right to change my mind when you demonstrate an
>> > > ontology tool that
>> > > > is, in fact, easy to use for a domain person :-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Deana
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Quoting Shawn Bowers <sbowers at ucdavis.edu>:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Some comments:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Laura L. Downey wrote:
>> > > > > >>Shawn writes:
>> > > > > >>I think that this is (or at least was) exactly one of the
>> > > "missions"
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > >>SEEK: to get scientists involved in creating and using
>>*formal*
>> > > > > ontologies.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Using formal ontologies, yes. I have definitely seen some
>> > > excitement
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > semantic mediation has been talked about in a way that will
>>make
>> > > their
>> > > > > jobs
>> > > > > > easier -- of finding other data sets they would not
>>otherwise
>> > > have
>> > > > > found,
>> > > > > > when identifying actors that would be useful to them that
>>they
>> > > > > otherwise
>> > > > > > might not have identified etc. And yes, creating the
>> > > ontologies
>> > > > > themselves
>> > > > > > too, because they know their domains better than we do,
>>but
>> > > formally
>> > > > > > specifying them so that machines can make use of them? I'm
>>not so
>> > > sure
>> > > > > about
>> > > > > > that from what I've seen. But again, remember I'm new to
>>the
>> > > project
>> > > > > so
>> > > > > > bringing an outsider perspective and maybe one that needs to
>>be
>> > > more
>> > > > > > informed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think "formally specifying ontologies" is a loaded phrase
>>... it
>> > > is
>> > > > > being used to refer to the languages (such as OWL) and tools
>>(such
>> > > as
>> > > > > Protege) that have known deficiencies not only for "domain
>> > > scientists"
>> > > > >
>> > > > > but also in general for capturing knowledge. OWL is a W3C
>> > > specification
>> > > > >
>> > > > > that is based on XML and is overly verbose (being expressed in
>>XML)
>> > > and
>> > > > >
>> > > > > often misused. It is really just an interchange format, and
>>not
>> > > really a
>> > > > >
>> > > > > language unto itself (it's meant to encompass many languages
>>so as
>> > > to be
>> > > > >
>> > > > > a good middle-ground for tools that use disparate languages).
>>
>> > > Protege
>> > > > >
>> > > > > is a tool that is still young and is just starting to be
>>more
>> > > widely
>> > > > > used. It is, however, in many ways still designed for a very
>>small,
>> > >
>> > > > > highly technical user group.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ontology tools should be such that they present a sound and
>> > > intuitive
>> > > > > user model (i.e., the conceptual constructs used to create
>> > > ontologies),
>> > > > >
>> > > > > shielding the user from the underlying interchange format.
>>Most
>> > > tools
>> > > > > that are out there essentially present a low-level graphical
>> > > version of
>> > > > >
>> > > > > the language, not of these higher-level conceptual constructs.
>>A
>> > > counter
>> > > > >
>> > > > > example is CMAP, however, it's model in my opinion is too
>> > > unconstrained,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > and offers little support in terms of helping users to create
>>
>> > > > > well-designed and "consistent" ontologies.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I also think this notion that a domain scientist will
>>"informally"
>> > >
>> > > > > construct an ontology and then pass it off to a "knowledge
>> > > engineer" to
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "make it formal" is (a) not a scalable solution, (b) "passes
>>the
>> > > buck"
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to an unknown entity (i.e., the non-existent "knowledge
>> > > engineers"), and
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (c) in general, is not always a sound approach. (I'm not
>>picking
>> > > on you
>> > > > >
>> > > > > here Laura -- these are just some observations; and I'm trying
>>to
>> > >
>> > > > > stimulate some discussion as to what the approach should be
>>for
>> > > SEEK.)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think in SEEK, this notion of a knowledge engineer has been
>>used
>> > > in
>> > > > > place of providing useful tools to our users. I think if
>>anything,
>> > > the
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "knowledge engineer" should be built into the tool -- which
>>is
>> > > starting
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to emerge in some other tools, including protege.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think that the challenge in defining a "formal ontology" for
>>a
>> > > > > particular domain is that as a user: (1) you need to have a
>>clear
>> > >
>> > > > > understanding of the domain, the concepts, their definitions
>>(very
>> > >
>> > > > > challenging in general), and (2) you need to understand how
>>to
>> > > represent
>> > > > >
>> > > > > this information in the knowledge representation
>>language/tool. If
>> > > a
>> > > > > domain scientist gives the knowledge engineer the first item
>>(1),
>> > > then
>> > > > >
>> > > > > the scientist could have just as well input the information in
>>a
>> > > > > well-designed ontology tool. If the knowledge engineer gives
>>a
>> > > vague and
>> > > > >
>> > > > > imprecise description of (1), then the knowledge engineer has
>>no
>> > > chance
>> > > > >
>> > > > > of doing (2). My argument is that to "create ways for
>>regular
>> > > users to
>> > > > >
>> > > > > provide the appropriate input to the knowledge engineers so
>>that
>> > > items
>> > > > >
>> > > > > are formally specified" essentially means that the "regular
>>users"
>> > > have
>> > > > >
>> > > > > already specified the ontology -- and they don't need the KE
>>(of
>> > > course
>> > > > >
>> > > > > this could be an iterative process, where the KE "holds the
>>hand"
>> > > of the
>> > > > >
>> > > > > scientist through the process -- which is again not going to
>>scale
>> > > and
>> > > > >
>> > > > > is probably not that practical).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Of course, not only do we want to make (2) easy, we also want
>>tools
>> > > to
>> > > > >
>> > > > > help scientists/users get to (1). I think there are lots of
>>ways to
>> > > help
>> > > > >
>> > > > > users get to (1), e.g., by:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - describing a process/methodology, like in object-oriented
>> > > analysis and
>> > > > >
>> > > > > design that can help one go from a fuzzy conceptualization to
>>a
>> > > clearer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > model (we want to target scientists, however, instead of
>>software
>> > >
>> > > > > designers/developers)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - providing tools to help people "sketch" out their ideas
>>before
>> > > > > committing to an ontology language (but make it explicit that
>>they
>> > > are
>> > > > >
>> > > > > doing the "sketch" as part of a process) ... e.g., by allowing
>>some
>> > >
>> > > > > free-text definitions mixed with class and property defs, etc.
>>
>> > > > > Essentially, provide a tool that can facilitate someone to go
>>from
>> > >
>> > > > > informal/unclear to formal/clear.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - adopting some known approaches for "cleaning up" an
>>ontology
>> > > (similar
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to OntoClean, e.g.)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - providing tools that can identify inconsistencies and
>>possible
>> > > > > "pitfalls" in the ontology (useful for getting to a clearer,
>>more
>> > > formal
>> > > > >
>> > > > > model)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - providing lots of examples of "well-defined" ontologies
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - letting people edit and reuse existing well-formed
>>ontologies (in
>> > >
>> > > > > fact, I think that once we have a basic framework, this will
>>be the
>> > >
>> > > > > typical model of interaction for many scientists ... )
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In terms of "machine understandable ontologies", this really
>>just
>> > > means
>> > > > >
>> > > > > that the ontology is captured in one of these ontology
>>languages,
>> > > like
>> > > > >
>> > > > > OWL. It doesn't mean that a scientist should have to
>>literally put
>> > >
>> > > > > their ontology into this language -- that is the job of the
>>tool.
>> > > Our
>> > > > > goal should be to help users specify ontologies using
>>"structured"
>> > >
>> > > > > approaches. That is, essentially in restricted languages that
>>are
>> > > not
>> > > > >
>> > > > > as ambiguous and not as unconstrained as natural language --
>>which
>> > > is
>> > > > > typically done using graphical tools (box and line diagrams).
>>
>> > > Also, the
>> > > > >
>> > > > > user should be completely unaware that their definitions are
>>being
>> > >
>> > > > > stored in these low-level languages; which is why the
>>existing
>> > > tools
>> > > > > fail for domain scientists / non computer-science folks.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Is the goal here to figure out a way to allow scientists
>>with
>> > > no
>> > > > > formal
>> > > > > > ontology experience to easily specify formal ontologies in
>>a
>> > > way
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > machines can make use of them? That seems like a daunting
>>task
>> > > to me
>> > > > > -- and
>> > > > > > one that would require considerable time and resources.
>>Didn't I
>> > > just
>> > > > > read
>> > > > > > from Mark (in the IRC convo) that the knowledge engineers
>> > > themselves
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > trouble with their own tools like Protégé? Creating and
>> > > specifying
>> > > > > formal
>> > > > > > ontologies is a complex and challenging job even for those
>> > > trained in
>> > > > > it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I agree that scientists understand their domains better
>>than
>> > > others,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > that doesn't mean they understand how to formally
>>represent
>> > > that
>> > > > > domain in a
>> > > > > > way that can be utilized by a machine. They user their
>>own
>> > > > > experience,
>> > > > > > intuition, and knowledge to create ontologies. They make
>> > > decisions
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > understand possible exceptions. But that is a different
>>task
>> > > than
>> > > > > formally
>> > > > > > specifying that ontology to a rigid set of rules that can
>>be
>> > > utilized
>> > > > > via
>> > > > > > machine processing. I'm thinking that is still a task to be
>>done
>> > > by
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > trained knowledge engineer.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And if we create ways for regular users to provide the
>> > > appropriate
>> > > > > input to
>> > > > > > the knowledge engineers so that items are formally specified
>>in
>> > > such a
>> > > > > way
>> > > > > > that the system can make use of them to the benefit of the
>> > > regular
>> > > > > users, I
>> > > > > > would see that as a definite win and demonstration of the
>>power
>> > > of
>> > > > > semantic
>> > > > > > mediation to make scientists jobs easier.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Laura L. Downey
>> > > > > > Senior Usability Engineer
>> > > > > > LTER Network Office
>> > > > > > Department of Biology, MSC03 2020
>> > > > > > 1 University of New Mexico
>> > > > > > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
>> > > > > > 505.277.3157 phone
>> > > > > > 505.277-2541 fax
>> > > > > > ldowney at lternet.edu
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > seek-kr-sms mailing list
>> > > > > > seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>> > > > > > http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > seek-kr-sms mailing list
>> > > > > seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>> > > > > http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > **************************
>> > > > Dr. Deana D. Pennington
>> > > > Long-term Ecological Research Network Office
>> > > >
>> > > > UNM Biology Department
>> > > > MSC03 2020
>> > > > 1 University of New Mexico
>> > > > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
>> > > >
>> > > > 505-277-2595 (office)
>> > > > 505 272-7080 (fax)
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > seek-kr-sms mailing list
>> > > > seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>> > > > http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > **************************
>> > Dr. Deana D. Pennington
>> > Long-term Ecological Research Network Office
>> >
>> > UNM Biology Department
>> > MSC03 2020
>> > 1 University of New Mexico
>> > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
>> >
>> > 505-277-2595 (office)
>> > 505 272-7080 (fax)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>**************************
>Dr. Deana D. Pennington
>Long-term Ecological Research Network Office
>
>UNM Biology Department
>MSC03 2020
>1 University of New Mexico
>Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
>
>505-277-2595 (office)
>505 272-7080 (fax)
>_______________________________________________
>seek-kr-sms mailing list
>seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
>
>
--
Mark P. Schildhauer, Ph.D. -- Director of Computing
NCEAS -- National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
735 State St., Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3351
Email: schild at nceas.ucsb.edu WEB: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu
Phone: 805-892-2509 FAX: 805-892-2510
More information about the Seek-kr-sms
mailing list