(bridge)                        Send note to Paul Prueitt .                      (SBF2)


We ask that comments and discussion on this series be made in the Yahoo groups from, eventChemistry.



SBF2 – Ontological Primitives, derived by Sowa and Ballard

SBF3 – Data regularity within the Ontological Primitives

SBF4Mapping Viewpoints and Differences Between Viewpoints


The Sowa -Ballard Framework 1


One may conjecture that perhaps the Zachman Framework is a universal for one class of complex processes, but that other frameworks exist.  Two examples of other frameworks are the 12 primitive-element Sowa Framework and 18 primitive-element Ballard Framework for knowledge base construction.  


The Sowa-Ballard Framework (SBF) has the form of an 18 tuple:


< a(0), a(1), a(2), . .  . , a(18) >


Where the value of a(0) is set by a pre-process that categorizes the event that the Framework will be used to characterize.  How these values are set is subject to some considerations that Ballard (“On the Evolution of a Commercial Ontology”, pre-print not yet available publicly) is making known and perhaps there are some innovations that OSI will make also.  What is proposed here is that human action perception cycles be enhanced with a tri-level computational architecture that mimics memory, awareness and anticipation states.


Suppose that 100 events have been considered. 


Domain space = { E(i) | i = 1, . . . , 100 }


The OSI Framework Browser stores the cell values as strings, and inventories these strings into ASCII text.  An I-RIB exists that governs the access to the data.  The OSI Framework Browser elicits the knowledge from the human clerk and then stores this in a convenient way. 


A parsing program then produces a correlation analysis and results in a “derived” 18 tuple:


< a(0), a’(1), a’(2), . .  . , a’(18) >


where a(0) is the event type and a’(1), . . . , a’(18) are each fillers that minimally sign the cell contents.  The derivation process involved a reification of the fillers of the frameworks slots, and this means that a theory of type is developed for each slot and a theory of relationship is develop between the various slots.   


There is a reduction of a free form of writing to a set of standard fillers for cells.  Over time, the filling of cells might often be made from a pick list; as long as there is always a means to introduce new types of fillers at any moment.  A type of “open logic”, related to QAT, governs the introduction of new types of fillers.


The set of fillers for each framework cell (a cell is called also a slot in script theory) becomes the set of natural-kind that is observed to be the structural components of the event under consideration.  These structural components are the substance of the events, and the discoveries of relationships between structural elements are to be viewed using the categoricalAbstraction (cA) and eventChemistry (eC) OSI Browsers. 


Categorical expression is expressed within the co-occurrence of elements of structure and these correlate to functional dependencies between framework slots.  The senseMaking architecture for the OSI Knowledge Operating System (OSI - KOS) is then used to annotate these dependencies and to develop first order logics that provide top down expectancies and predictive filling in of slots (cells) that have not been filled in.   The slots functional dependencies are rendered visually in the eventChemistry browsers.


The predictive Methodology using cA/eC is fulfilled in a nice way using the Generalized Framework in senseMaking architecture.



(bridge)                       Comments can be sent to ontologyStream e-forum .                 (SBF2)