RE: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
Hi Adam;
Thanks for your response. Please see below:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apease [mailto:apease@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:06 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I'
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail); Ontology Group
> Subject: RE: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
>
>
> Eric,
> The addition you suggest to the Scope and Purpose certainly seems
> reasonable to me. Separate issues you raise I attempt to restate
> below. However, I don't think any of them impact the Scope
> and Purpose and
> I hope you'll be willing to change your vote now that these
> discussion
> topics have been raised.
I really want to vote yes, but my semantics for yes require me to think that
the document describes a plausible path to success. I think it's close, but
without scoping the effort back to the relatively simple subset that I
described, I fear that we will get lost in the tangle of controversy and
complexity. On the simpler path, we might loose some who think they need
more intellectual challenge, but that will leave those of us who are willing
to do the humble and essential task of rolling up our sleeves, putting on
the hip waders, and plodding around in the wet concrete of the structural
foundation of the SUO ;^)
>
> 1. Needing to vote "no" in order to be heard. I don't think
> this is the
> case and I'm glad to see that Jim responded quickly and
> unequivocally on
> this point.
I wasn't sure what he was offering to do with my comments. But lacking the
reputation of some on this group, my only leverage consists of my no vote
and whatever persuasive skills I can muster.
>
> 2. Focus on "structural" axioms. I agree this is important.
> I hoped that
> my suggestion for a set of four structural terms for the
> ontology would
> enable us to make rapid progress without introducing any
> controversial
> notions. Are there specific "structural" terms that you feel the SUO
> should have beyond "instance-of", "subclass-of", "nth-domain"
> and "Thing"?
I think they would do if I understand "nth-domain" properly.
>
> 3. A language to emphasize frame statements. Personally,
> I'd like us not
> to get hung up on language issues. The real point of this effort is
> semantic content, not syntactic sugar. If folks want to
> create translation
> tools to re-express the SUO automatically in various formats (frames,
> pictures of graphs etc), I'm sure that will be helpful but
> doesn't really
> seem central to our efforts.
Right.
>
> 4. Emphasis on structural axioms vs other axioms. I believe
> both are
> required. Without a core set of axioms to support the three
> relations I've
> proposed, we risk building on a shaky foundation.
To invoke a hand waving argument of the US founding fathers, I hold the
truth of those relations to be self evident.
On the
> other hand, I'd
> hope that on this topic too we could come to some quick and
> reasonable
> agreement and move on to the substantive knowledge content.
Right.
>
> just my two cents,
> Adam
Sorry if I'm repeating some answers to these comments, but I can't find a
copy of what I though that I sent out earlier.
FWIW,
-Eric
>
> At 12:44 PM 7/20/2000 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
>
> >Vote: NO
> >
> >Comments: I actually rather like the Scope and Purpose
> statement in nearly
> >all material respects. I'm posting this vote to the group
> so that these
> >issues can be heard and so that I can be set straight if I'm
> not being
> >reasonable - in which case I'll change my vote.
> >
> >I fear, however that without an explicit, stated emphasis on
> the what I call
> >"structural" axioms, that we will be building a rather Baroque and
> >never-ending SUO second floor without ever getting around to
> providing a
> >sufficiently broad foundation.
> >
> >By "structural", I mean that our emphasis be chiefly on more
> or less the
> >object-oriented/frame subset of what an ontology can be.
> Namely, I would
> >include inheritance axioms, relations, relatively simple
> range constraints,
> >etc. Notationally, I have no problem with FOL, but
> frame-like languages
> >like KE-Text that "expand" into FOL seem more far more
> comprehensible to me.
> >KE-Text also allows the addition of "raw" first order axioms
> for when the
> >simpler notation doesn't suffice.
> >
> >With respect to more complex questions like the many sordid
> logics ;^) and
> >complex (non-structural) axioms, I would expect that we
> would want to spend
> >sufficient energy to try to ensure that the "structural"
> axioms are of use
> >to the mainstream logics. With respect to complex axioms,
> if folks desire
> >the addition of more than a small few complex
> (non-structural) axioms, I
> >would suggest that this work be cordoned off into a later
> phase of this
> >effort.
> >
> >I've also included a couple of nit's within the text of the
> proposal below.
> >
> >
> >For what it's worth,
> >
> >-Eric Peterson
> >Senior Ontologist
> >VerticalNet
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > > [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:19 PM
> > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > Subject: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2nd Call: Please vote by July 26th.
> > >
> > > SUO Participants,
> > >
> > > I would now like to call for a vote on the below Scope
> > > and Purpose.
> > > The objectives of this vote are to:
> > >
> > > a. Cause a greater number of participants to review and
> > > understand
> > > the Scope and Purpose.
> > >
> > > b. Solicit suggested changes and improvements.
> > >
> > > c. See if we have enough consensus and interest to proceed.
> > >
> > > To vote, send an email to me (not this list), by July
> > > 26, 2000, with
> > > one of the following votes:
> > >
> > > YES (with or without comments)
> > > NO (must have comments stating why you are voting NO)
> > > ABSTAIN (with or without comments)
> > >
> > > IEEE does not define rules for voting within a
> Study Group, but
> > > hopefully we'll be able to deal with most comments and
> reach maximum
> > > consensus without strict voting rules.
> > >
> > > Please cast your vote.
> > >
> > > Jim Schoening
> > > Chair, IEEE SUO Study Group
> > > http://ltsc.ieee.org/suo
> > >
> > >
> > > Scope of Proposed Project:
> > > (The Scope describes what is being done, including the
> > > technical boundaries
> > > of the project.)
> > > This standard will specify the syntax and semantics of a
> > > general-purpose
> > > upper level ontology. An ontology is a set of terms and
> > > formal definitions.
> > > This will be limited to the upper level, which provides
> definition for
> > > general-purpose terms and provides a structure for compliant
> > > lower level
> > > domain ontologies. It is estimated to contain between 1000
> > > and 2500 terms
> > > plus roughly ten definitional statements for each term. It is
> > > intended to
> > > provide the foundation for ontologies of much larger size and
> > > more specific
> > > scope.
> > >
> > > Purpose of Proposed Project:
> > > (The Purpose describes why the standard needs to be developed
> > > and who will
> > > benefit.)
> > > * The standard will be suitable for automated logical
> inference to
> > > support knowledge-based reasoning applications.
> > > * This standard will enable the development of a
> large (20,000+)
> > > general-purpose standard ontology of common concepts to be
> > > developed, which
> > > will provide the basis for middle-level domain ontologies and
> > > lower-level
> > > application ontologies.
> > > * The ontology will be suitable for "compilation" to more
> > > restricted
> > > forms such as XML,
> >
> >...database schema, or object oriented schema. This will enable
> >developers...
> >
> >NOTE: I explicitly mention OO in an attempt to be very
> inclusive at to
> >highlight this very important group that we can benefit and
> receive benefit
> >from.
> >
> > > to define new data elements in terms of a common ontology,
> > > and thereby gain
> > > some degree of interoperability with other compliant systems.
> > > * Owners of existing systems will be able to map existing data
> > > elements just once to a common ontology, and thereby gain
> a degree of
> > > interoperability with other representations that are
> > > compliant with the SUO.
> > >
> > > * Domain-specific ontologies which are compliant with the
> > > SUO will be
> > > able to interoperate (to some degree) by virtue of the shared
> > > common terms
> > > and definitions.
> > > * Applications of the ontology will include:
> > > * E-commerce applications from different domains
> > > which need to
> > > interoperate at both the data and semantic levels.
> > > * Educational applications in which students learn
> > > concepts and
> > > relationships directly from, or expressed in terms of, a
> > > common ontology.
> > > This will also enable a standard record of learning to be kept.
> > > * Natural language understanding tasks in which a
> > > knowledge based
> > > reasoning system uses the ontology to disambiguate among likely
> > > interpretations of natural language statements.
> > >
>
> -----------------
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>
>