Paper 6

Paper Title: Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies

Hepp, M.;
Internet Computing, IEEE
Volume 11, Issue 1, Jan.-Feb. 2007 Page(s):90 – 96

Three Critical Questions


Group 1:

Member Name:Chiranjeevi Ashok Puvvula

What should be done to achieve completeness in ontology? This can be difficult because of the new conceptual elements coming in every day.

What are the industrial standards that need to be ontologized? How can this be achieved? Privacy policy and property rights might cause some problems. How can this issue be solved?

Conceptualizations of some elements are unstated, how can this conceptualization be achieved? Should we develop some tools that can logically relate elements and the concepts related to them can be clearly explained and clarified?

Group 2:

Member Name:Srikanth Kodali

• If the system is constructed by considering the dynamics among the domains and left for some years, will it catch-up the requirements of that time?
• The developer is developing the semantic web application by considering the dynamics of the domains, then how can the developer predict and justify his model (or) view about the future of that domain? Can he grantee that the application serves the needs of future?
• The author says that the semantic web application development cost should not exceed the benefits of it. In economic point of view, can the dynamic semantic applications be economic?
• The author says that, the small size applications are more popular than the large sized applications. But considering the performance of the applications like pizza and cancer are most popular applications and useful. How the sizes of the application determine the popularity?

Group 3:

Member Name: Sunil Kakaraparthi

1. There author gives a snapshot of the popular ontologies available and provided to us. The survey was based on the Semantic Web documents referring to this ontology. Is it satisfactory to make a decision, taking into consideration a single issue?
2. The author states that the when the author’s constraint is combined with the conceptual dynamics dimension the space of the possible ontologies is limited to at least three dimensions. However the analysis is done by taking degree of details and expressiveness and community size but how this consideration does is done without considering the issues such as complexity, completeness and interoperability.
3. The author states the building ontologies is inherently a social process constrained by technical, social, economic and legal bottlenecks, this is done by bringing interest to purely technical issues to addressing the challenges. But does the building process relate to the business development which is major core for the development of the ontologies?
4. The author has mentioned the possibility of data interchange format problems and suggested to use RDF format. But, the same field such as “password” and “PIN” can be used interchangeably. Various industries may follow various names for the fields. Is there any other common data format that can understand the difference between them and automatically change the field names and integrate into our application?

Group 4:

Member Name: Prashant Sunkari, Nikhilesh Katakam

Q) While explaining about the “Obstacle 4”, the authors doesn’t mention how different is the property right issue with respect to researchers who is builds an onotology from the researchers who adopt other onotologies into their own?
Q) For an ontology to be useful the author keeps various constrains such as the size should be small the ontology should be fairly familiarized and the cost should be optimal and should provide very high added value. Is it practically possible to build such an ontology. The author does not provide sufficient evidences to answer this question.
Q) Any ontology created with reality in mind will be affected by conceptual dynamism. But author puts conceptual dynamics as one of the obstacle. Is this obstacle feasible?

Group 5:

Member Name: Ritesh Mengji, Lokesh Bindal

• Author says that a large number of fine grained methodologies are those to build an ontology and they are helpful in setting the environment for developing the particular ontologies. Do any coarse grain methodologies exist?
• The author explains the need to integrate current and the developmental aspects of any particular domain of interest to construct an ontology, but doesn’t provide a concrete solution towards a fine granualarized storage where equal preference is give ot the old and the newly acquired data bases?
• In the domain of interaction between the creators and users, there is a problem of updating documentation and ontologies based on the real tome feed. The problem is not clearly addressed by the author as to how and what is a set of precautions or measures to be taken to make an effective release where such problems can be overcomed?

Group 6:

Member Name: Palla Sangram

1) The author assumed that lesser the number of users of community , more expressive and detailed is the ontology. How can we increase the number of users even though ontology is more detailed and expressive.
2) How can the maintenance lag be decreased because the author said that update to an ontology takes time.
3) How we can include the basic concepts in addition with the new concepts in building present ontology?

Group 7:

Member Name: Priyanka Koneru

1. “ If there are ‘ multiple ontologies with partial overlap’ , inorder to increase interoperability between data , Can those ontologies be combined” ?? He didn’t mention anything about ontology life cycle, what are the stages involved in ontology life cycle?? How are these stages related ?
2. The author discussed about ‘ four bottleneck problems in this paper’ . But he didn’t mention alternative solutions to remove those problem. How does this bottleneck problems effect the overall performance of the semantic web ?
3. “The author mentioned about five fundamental tasks of building and committing the ontologies which are insufficiently addressed by the current ontologies”. But he didn’t mention any solutions to these fundamental problems and how are these problems to be addresses to build a better ontology etc.
4. “Ontology related tasks are divided into two groups – building and committing to a particular ontology “. So how can one commit to a particular domain’s conceptual elements? How are the constraints that arise while building an ontology be resolved?

Group 8:

Member Name:Lakshmi Bhavani.N, Hema Snigdha.P

1.If we fix the domain and then develop an ontology,meanwhile there is a possibility that new charactesristics may be added to it which may not be incorporated into the existing one and might take time to build or remodify the application.Is’nt it a time taking proess?
2.It is stated that a better ontology can be build using a smaller group can increase the resources,for a global semantic web a smaller group might not be sufficient.
3.Developing an ontology for a particular domain will not be prominent as an ontology must be suitable for all domains.Ontologies must be a multi-purpose domain.Is it a prevalent one if it developed on one domain?


Group 1:

Member Name:

Group 2:

Member Name: Addagalla Satyanaga Manoj Kumar; Bobbili, Shrinath; Gopinath, Sreejith

1)The author specifies that ontologies should be very detailed about domain rather than it being philosophical abstract. But in the later part of the paper he tells that smaller abstracts are in practice. How can an ontology be detailed and at the same time abstract?

2) The author considers Swoogle to know the kind of ontologies in use. But Swoogle has a limitation that it does not consider quality of knowledge. How can the author come to a conclusion about the usage of ontologies just basing on the Swoogle results which considers only page rank?

3) Ontology serialization is a narrow channel of ontology specification. Will the ontology perspicuity overcome this bottleneck?

Group 3:

Member Name: Swathi M Shastry

1. The author states that after having committed to an ontology with less specification which makes it abstract and requiring less maintenance, conceptual dynamics continue to be rampant in almost every domain such as 'IT components' industry, 'pharmaceuticals' industry, and 'chemical' industry. I feel that this occurs largely due to the fact that the release cycle spans over a period of six months to an year in which newer concepts and technologies might have come into fore, so would the lessening of the duration of a release cycle resolve the problem of conceptual dynamics to a reasonable extent?

2. The author uses the semantic web search's reference to a particular ontology to determine the reach or the 'network externality' of that ontology, but this search was carried out on a Swoogle search engine, which does not list all the possible ontology, so the figure the author arrived at could have been wrong. My question is if we can have a standard in place that can give us an accurate idea of the reach of a particular ontology, so that we can measure the network externality accurately enough.

3. Is there a protocol or a standard defined in the ontology specifications, for each ontology, that helps us filter out stale data, so that the user can know if the search result that he has been provided with is current and updated with the latest technological advancements? Can this determination of aging of data be part of the documentation which specifies ontology or can it be implemented on the semantic web?

Group 4:

Member Name:Karunapiya Rameshwaram, Shaiv, Anusha Vunnam

Critical Questions:
1.The author in the paper discussed about the automation of ontologies but developing an ontology is itself an automation, what did he mean about the automation?
2.It is mentioned in the paper that those people not involved in developing an ontology have the only source in understanding the ontology by their specification how far this will be possible to understand the ontology by their specification alone?
3.Will it be possible to build bigger ontologies taking in account of all the constraints and bottlenecks discussed in the paper?

Group 5:

Member Name: Gayathri Devi Bojja

1. Any application is build for users and not for creators or developers. So an application holds its value only if it is useful to large numbers of users. So now how can we consider the usage of ontology as good approach to build semantic web which lacks in this aspect?
2. Though semantic web is gaining popularity slowly there is no proper standard introduced to build ontology. So what standard should be used to build ontology for any particular domain?
3. The author uses the ontology specification file size as a reference to know how detail and how complete it is and number of documents that support semantic web as reference to community size that uses ontology. But how appropriate are these references?

Group 6:

Member Name:

Group 7:

Member Name: Goyal, Saurabh, De Morais Andrade,Pablo and Boda,Vamshidhar Reddy

• How can be the new concepts be stored without losing the basic concepts which may be old but useful in the future?
• How is it possible to make Ontology clearly understand the user with less amount of documentation?
• Author said that updating the existing ontology and documentation takes time. What is the solution.while releasing so that they can release the update quickly?

Group 8:

Member Name:Brugu Kumar Bhargava

1) How can the current concepts are stored without losing the basic concepts which may be old but useful in the future ?
2) The author predicts that “More detailed and expressive the ontology , the smaller the actual users of community.” How can we solve this problem that is making the detailed ontology and having large users in the community?
3) Author says that producing an update to the ontology and documentation takes time. What are the precautions while releasing so that they can release the update quickly? Or Can we have a better way of decreasing the maintenance lag?

Group 9:

Member Name: Satish Bhat, Holly Vo

1. In order to support ontology extension on a domain, who will approve if the newly added concepts are correct and compatible with the others, and who grants the privilege to users to extend the ontology (to eliminate users with insufficient knowledge)?
2. A non-toy ontology must sufficiently cover primitive representation to support domain experts (not computer science experts) to easily extend the knowledge in the ontology. It means that the ontology creator must prove its representation completeness at some level. So does ontology need to create documentation about proof of completeness and direction guide of ontology extension to indicate its maturity and attract domain experts to utilize?
3. Do we need new title of “knowledge engineers” for people who work as the mediator between computer science engineers and domain experts (ex: doctors, economists, socialists, etc.) to fill out the gap between logic and knowledge?

Group 10:

Member Name: Sunae Shin, Hyungbae Park

1) The paper point out the important matter which is ignored so far. For example, ontology maintenance for variation of relationship and meaning of domains is appropriate indication. However, there is a lack of explanation about how the association between domains changes or how the domain becomes unrelated to already developed ontology.
2) From the figure 1 and also intuitively we can recognize forming ontology and maintaining the existing ontology takes some time. It would be better if they provide the average time in practice.
3) Specification and documentation of already discussed and development issue in software engineering. The third barrier, the concept of ontology perspicuity is similar to software engineering, for example, design and implementation should communicate with well-structured documents. The paper need to consider that adoption of software engineering concept which is build firmly. It might be possible solution for ontology.
4) To construct objective standard for intellectual property, the standardization of ontology should be ahead. Thus, the discussion for the methodology which is used to decide the standard is needed.
5) Small ontologies can be low-priced and easier to construct and preserve. However, valuable ontology does not mean always small size. The proper peak point which contents both dimension of ontology and popularity.
6) Detailed and proper figures and graphs helped to understand concepts for ontology obstacles which are abstract.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License