SUO: Re: What Language to Use
Jim Schoening wrote:
>
> SUO Group,
>
> We appear to have different opinions as to what
> type of language to use to express the SUO content.
>
> I suggest the best way to resolve this is through
> proposed content, not debate or a vote at this time.
>
> As content is proposed, it should be expressed in a proposed language.
>
> Content proposed in one language could be translated and resubmitted in
> another. This will demonstrate the maturity and features of each language.
> We might find middle ground or a composite solution, but at the least we will
> see which language builds consensus.
>
> Comment #12 (below) did achieve consensus that we would use
> a 'formal language,' but this should not prevent anyone from
> proposing content in any desired form.
>
> At some point, we will hopefully have enough proposed content
> to take a vote on what is loosely called a 'Base Document.'
> Such a document could come from a group effort or proposed
> by one participant. The purpose of a Base Document vote
> is to determine whether the group wants to focus work on
> a given document. For example, if a member proposed
> a traditional glossary as a base document, we might
> disapprove it because it doesn't come close to our
> goal of an upper ontology. A group can agree to
> focus on more than one base document.
>
> Relating to this issue of language, a base document could be
> voted up or down based on the language it is expressed in.
> This would be a meaningful vote, but to vote now would simply
> lock out alternatives that might have value.
>
> As I have stated many times, standards have the greatest chance of success
> if based on mature and practiced technology (called 'existing practice')
> rather than research concepts. There is certainly some room for emerging
> technology in standards, but it will need to have matured before the
> standard can succeed. The risk is in drawing on too much unproven
> technology. Let's keep this in mind as we select a language.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Sent: 9/14/00 8:54 PM
> Subject: SUO: RE: Comment #12 - 'Syntax for SUO' -- Proposed Resolution
>
>
> All,
>
> We appear to have consensus that SUO should be specified in
> a 'formal language,' so I propose we simply use those words
> and drop the word 'syntax.'
>
> Any objections?
>
> I still need to work this into the overall Scope.
>
> Jim Schoening
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
SUO Group:
Here is my rendition of John Sowa's "Top Level Categories",
the original content of which can be accessed at the site:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/toplevel.htm
I have re-written this content, so far as I was able to interpret it --
modulo whatever corrections or refinements I may need from its author --
in the form of language that I would use for the propositional foundation
of quantificational calculus, both for expressing and for performing all
manners of what I like to call "propositional constraint reasoning" (PCR).
You may take this both as an experiment in translation and as an illustration
of the language that I would recommend, for all sorts of reasons that we may
discuss later, for this "zeroth order level" of any logical representation.
By way of re-using work already done, I will re-cite the presentation that
I previously posted to the CG List, which is also accessible in its Archive:
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03376.html
> #%%THIS%%%#%%%IS%%%%#%%%NOT%%%#%%%%A%%%%#%%FRAME%%#
>
> Here is an example of how to use the RefLog extension
> of Peirce's Alpha Graphs, that I described in an earlier
> note, to represent the partition constraints that are
> immanent in a given ontology.
>
> Consider John Sowa's "Top-Level Categories" (TLC),
> that are presented at:
>
> <http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/toplevel.htm>
>
> By reading off the most obvious partition constraints
> that are evident from the lattice diagram, and after
> some fiddling that I will explain later, one arrives
> at the following proposition in RefLog:
>
> "
> (( Object ),( Process ),( Schema ),( Script ),
> ( Juncture ),( Participation ),( Description ),( History ),
> ( Structure ),( Situation ),( Reason ),( Purpose ))
>
> ((
>
> ( Independent ,( Actuality ),( Form ))
> ( Relative ,( Prehension ),( Proposition ))
> ( Mediating ,( Nexus ),( Intention ))
>
> ( Physical ,( Actuality ),( Prehension ),( Nexus ))
> ( Abstract ,( Form ),( Proposition ),( Intention ))
>
> ( Continuant ,( Object ),( Schema ),( Juncture ),
> ( Description ),( Structure ),( Reason ))
> ( Occurrent ,( Process ),( Script ),( Participation ),
> ( History ),( Situation ),( Purpose ))
>
> ( Actuality ,( Object ),( Process ))
> ( Form ,( Schema ),( Script ))
> ( Prehension ,( Juncture ),( Participation ))
> ( Proposition ,( Description ),( History ))
> ( Nexus ,( Structure ),( Situation ))
> ( Intention ,( Reason ),( Purpose ))
>
> ))
> "
>
> This expression makes use of two basic forms:
>
> 1. An expression of the form "(( X1 ),( X2 ), ... ,( Xk ))"
> says that the universe of discourse is partitioned into
> k "mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories" (MEEC's),
> those for which the propositions X1, X2, ..., Xk, respectively,
> are true.
>
> 2. An expression of the form "( Y ,( Y1 ),( Y2 ), ... ,( Yk ))"
> says that the part of the universe of discourse where Y is true
> is partitined into k MEEC's, those for which the propositions
> Y1, Y2, ..., Yk, respectively, are true.
>
> The "recessing" of the larger part of the expression within
> a logically otiose double negation "(( ... ))" is merely a trick
> that makes the processing more efficient for a particular program.
>
> This whole expression effectively tells one how to embed the lattice
> in B^25, where B = {0, 1}, a 25-dimensional universe of discourse --
> binary cube, truth table, venn diagram, or however you want to view it --
> 25 being the number of terms in the vocabulary, which are here interpreted
> as binary features or boolean variables.
>
> Next time, I will discuss the program that I wrote, a long time ago,
> for handling these types of expressions. I would be willing to send
> a copy of the program (Pas & Exe) to anybody who wants it, but only
> if they are prepared to engage in a certain amount of DOS-talgia.
>
> One of the ultimate outputs of this program, when run on
> the above expression, is the following text, which lists,
> in outline form, the maximal consistent sets of positive
> features that are allowed by the propositional constraints:
>
> "
> Object
> Continuant
> Actuality
> Independent
> Physical
> Process
> Occurrent
> Actuality
> Independent
> Physical
> Schema
> Continuant
> Form
> Independent
> Abstract
> Script
> Occurrent
> Form
> Independent
> Abstract
> Juncture
> Continuant
> Prehension
> Relative
> Physical
> Participation
> Occurrent
> Prehension
> Relative
> Physical
> Description
> Continuant
> Proposition
> Relative
> Abstract
> History
> Occurrent
> Proposition
> Relative
> Abstract
> Structure
> Continuant
> Nexus
> Mediating
> Physical
> Situation
> Occurrent
> Nexus
> Mediating
> Physical
> Reason
> Continuant
> Intention
> Mediating
> Abstract
> Purpose
> Occurrent
> Intention
> Mediating
> Abstract
> "
>
> Anyway, I think that I got this right,
> but that may be too much to expect
> for a first try.
>
> Jon
>
> #%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%Jon#Awbrey%%%#
The parser and processor for this language were written up as a part
of the materials that I submitted for my Master's in Psych in 1989,
and I will be happy to share all relevent code, docs, and source
with anybody who is interested. Co-laborators on updates and
future extensions are earnestly sought. Co-authors for ICCS,
anybody?
I previously introduced my "re-form" of this content on the Conceptual Graphs List,
and its more extended development therein can be traced through the following links:
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03351.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03352.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03353.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03354.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03376.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03379.html
http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03381.html
I probably should emphasize that this recommendation is only relevant
to the propositional calculus or the sentential logic aspects of FOL,
although it does suggest a significantly different way of extending
this level to cover a more substantial quantificational calculus.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤