Re: SUO: Criteria that an ontology must satisfy
John --
Is your intent with these criteria to motivate one ontology, or an
integrated set of ontologies? I suppose a system of ontologies can
(should?) be regarded as a single ontology from one point of view. But it
seems that one of our, as yet unresolved, issues is what we really mean by
an "upper" ontology. The scope of your criteria seems to imply one
all-embracing ontology (or set, or system of ontologies). Are there
criteria that we can further apply that will help us make progress on the
project of defining an "upper" ontology?
Doug McDavid
Certified Executive Consultant
Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
Professional Development - BIS, Americas
Member of IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>@ieee.org on 03/09/2001 05:19:06 AM
Please respond to "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
To: Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>, sowa@bestweb.net,
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
cc:
Subject: SUO: Criteria that an ontology must satisfy
Chris,
Although I believe that we should tolerate many different
points of view, I don't believe that we need to support them.
Pat suggested that we "go out and shoot" certain people who
disagree with us, but I think that he is too lazy to go
through all the effort required to take such action.
I recommend a simpler approach: state some criteria that any
adequate ontology must meet. If some proposal can't satisfy
them, then there is no need for us to consider it any further
until the proposer comes back with a revised version that does.
Recommended criteria:
1. The ability to define any and all terms used in well
established laws and theories of the major scientific
fields, especially physics, chemistry, and biology. That
may also include defining some terms, such as phlogiston
and ether, which eventually become obsolete, but which
are reasonable hypotheses at the time they are proposed.
2. The ability to define any and all terms used in major
areas of business, engineering, agriculture, and other
fields that do enough useful work that people are willing
to pay them to keep doing it.
3. The ability to support inferences with those definitions
that agree with established usage in the fields in which
the terms are used.
<snipped the rest>