Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: Comment#1 'Foundations'
> > >
> > > 4. Ontology Parts
> > > - A series of parts, each probably quite small
> > > (smaller than the Ian Niles document) that
> > > can be used in groups together for particular
> > > purposes.
> > Actually, the "Merged Ontology" is comprised of nine relatively
> > self-contained sections, viz. "Structural Ontology", "General
> > Classes and
> > Axioms", "Agent Hierarchy", "Number Hierarchy", "Units of Measure",
> > "Organism Hierarchy", "Temporal Definitions/Axioms", "Mereotopological
> > Definitions/Axioms", and "Positional Relations". Are you
> > saying that we
> > need a more fine-grained division that this?
>MW: This is a problem (I think) with KIF first of all.
>What I am saying is that it is already clear that a monolithic ontology will
>become unmanageable, if it hasn't already become so. I think we need what I
>think John has described as a Lattice of Theorems, or at least my
>interpretation of what he meant. That is that each theorem should be managed
>as a separate piece of KIF - this give manageability. But we also need to
>know as part of the theorem, which other theorems it is dependent on (I
>think we can allow dependence to be inherited).
Im not quite clear what you mean by 'dependent on' here. If you mean
'could resolve with and produce a conclusion', then almost everything
is going to depend on almost everything else.
>This implies that we need
>constructs in KIF to support this. So we need to be able to define a
>collection of KIF statements as a theory, and be able to give in a theory
>the list of other theories it is dependent on.
>You do not have any of this structure even informally, so no user would know
>which bits of the SUO he needs if say he is just interested in holes.
>If this can already be done with KIF as it is, I would appreciate an
KIF does not of itself provide this structure, but software could be
written to extract it automatically. Cycorp have extensive tools to
allow the user to 'browse' through a large axiomatic Kbase, including
such facilities as asking for a concept related to an existing
concept, view and navigate through the (highly complex) class
heirarchy, and see all axioms which mention a concept or group of
concepts. It takes some getting used to (its considerably more
complex than hyperlinks), but one can do most of what one wants to do
in this kind of framework. I honestly don't think we can expect to do
much better, and to develop usable tools like this is not a job to be
undertaken lightly: it is many man-years of effort. No large ontology
is going to fall apart neatly into separate theories which can be
taken or left in isolation. The SUO isnt going to have 'bits', its
going to be more like a kind of large network, with some areas more
tangled than others.
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax