From: John Flynn ([email protected])
Date: 01/24/03
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Forbus [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:26 PM To: Jerry Hobbs; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: A DAML Spatial Ontology I'd be willing to help. Re relevant work: Please have a look at Overview of qualitative spatial reasoning: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/qsrchap.pdf Ideas from qualitative mechanics: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/H_Kim_PhD_Thesis.pdf Representations and processing motivated by visual psychology: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/files/Ferguson%20and%20Forbus%20Q R99%20distribution%20copy.pdf Representing and reasoning about trafficability, using a GIS: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/files/Donlon_Forbus_QR99_Distribu tion.pdf Includes a partial look at some of the spatial reasoning in our sketching systems: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/ForbusUsherChapmanIUI2003.p df There's a few more that aren't scanned yet, I'll let folks know when they are there. Hope this is useful. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Hobbs [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:49 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: A DAML Spatial Ontology > > When I talked about the DAML-Time ontology > (http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~ferguson/daml/) at the last DAML meeting, > Murray Burke said it would be great for some people to get together > and do a DAML-Space ontology as well. This message is an attempt to > organize such an effort. > > The aim of this ontology would not be to drive out any other work on > spatial ontologies, but to provide a way for different spatial > reasoning engines and spatial resources to communicate with each > other, as well as a way for people to mark up the spatial information > on their web sites. The goals of the effort would be to produce an > ontology that would > > 1. Enable general, though not necessarily efficient, reasoning > about spatial concepts. > > 2. Link with more efficient specialized reasoning engines for > spatial reasoning. > > 3. Link with the numerous databases that exist containing a > wealth of specific, e.g., geographical, spatial information. > > 4. Support convenient query capabilities for spatial > information. > > The topics we would want to cover include the following (where I've > listed the corresponding topics that DAML-Time covers): > > Space Time > ----- ---- > > Topological relations Topological relations > (e.g., RCC8) (e.g., interval algebra) > > Dimension -- > > Shape -- > > Length, area and volume Duration > > Latitude, longitude, elevation Clock and calendar > > Political subdivisions -- > > Please feel free to comment on this list. > > Much of the work will be focused on geographical knowledge, but the > intent is not to restrict ourselves to this domain alone. Topological > spatial relations are important in microbiology, for example. Other > application areas that have been suggested are the geology of > earthquakes, NASA application, computer graphics, and virtual reality. > > Of course to do a thorough spatial ontology is an immense job. I > think we can restrict what we need to do by limiting ourselves to > _linking_ with resources, rather than _duplicating_ them. For > example, we would want to be able to interface with a resource on the > shapes of geographical regions, but we would not need to encode its > internal representations. > > As with DAML-Time, the aim would be to construct an ontology that > accomodates many perspectives on controversial issues rather than > forces a particular perspective. > > Let me know if you would be interested in participating in such an > effort, as least as far as tracking the email. Also suggest any > research and applications you think should be taken into account. It > would also be extremely helpful to develop a set of challenge problems > of varying levels of difficulty to help drive the development of the > ontology. > > This message is being sent to a rather haphazard set of people, so > please feel free to forward it to anyone else you think appropriate. > > -- Jerry Hobbs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 01/24/03 EST