Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
I have been agreeing with, and calling for, this modular approach for some
time.
Doug McDavid
mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
Nicola Guarino <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>@ieee.org on 03/10/2001
02:15:49 PM
Please respond to Nicola Guarino <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Dear Matthew,
I am sorry not having been able to enter this discussion so
far, but I totally agree with your point. Especially in this phase,
clarifying the different views and relating them each other is much
more important than attempting at a unifying ontology. In the future,
a library of reference ontologies (or a reference ontology library?)
can grow out of this effort. I don't exclude that, ultimately, one
single ontology will attract most of the consensus, but this can only
be proved by monitoring actual use, not on the basis of a priori
arguments.
In any case, I believe that the purpose of our effort is not
to force people (and computers) to think in the same way, but rather
to be clear about the meaning and the implications of what they
think. Suppose we have a well-designed ontology library, where each
module is adequately axiomatized, and a number of primitives are in
common, so that mappings and comparisons can be made among the
different axiomatizations. Now suppose that application 1 commits to
reference ontology RO7, and application 2 to RO2: the utility of this
(wrt to the absence of a reference ontology library) is in the fact
that i) RO7 and RO2 are "certified" as reflecting the view of a group
of people of a certain minimal size, with certain applications in
mind, who have developed these ontologies by adopting a controlled
methodology; ii) the formalization of RO7 and RO2 allows to establish
(partial) mappings and understanding the differences. This is a
concrete step towards integration.
Notice that a reference ontology library would be different
from a simple repository of ontologies (like for instance the one
maintained on the Stanford Ontology Server) inofar each SUO module
would be "certified" for soundness, clarity, existence of a suitable
number of potential applications, existence of a certain level of
common agreement, and existence of (partial) formal links with other
modules.
I believe that the level of agreement on this issue
monolithic vs. non-monolithic approach is suitable to be checked by
means a vote. As I have noted in the past, a vote on issues like this
one makes much more sense, at this stage, than a vote on an initial
"merged" ontology. So I ask James to call for a vote on this.
According to my notes, besides the people mentioned by Matthew, also
Chris Menzel, Chris Welty, Robert Kent, Frederick Chase, and Philip
Jackson have expressed their preference for a non-monolithic approach.
I hope this helps. I'll continue digesting the (many dozens)
unopened messages now...
At 10:09 AM +0100 6/3/01, West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
>It occurs to me that some may be a little confused about what all the fuss
>is about. There has been a very lively discussion about how we should
>construct an SUO, with a large number of sub-plots, the result being that
>you could be forgiven for being confused about what the discussion is
>actually about.
>
>This at least is my version.
>
>There are a number (say about 4-5) of world views that are documented,
>either in natural language, or in a more formal form, with a number of
>possible variations on these.
>
>Ian and his supporters argue that because all philosophers do not agree on
>just one of these, we should ignore all of them, giving preference to a
>process that Ian might describe as pragmatic selection from various
sources
>and merge.
>
>I, Pat Hayes, John Sowa, Chris Partridge, Nicola Guarino (please correct
me
>if I am mistaken) and perhaps others would argue that we would be better
>served by understanding the existing World Viewpoints and relating them to
>each other.
>
>Discussion
>
>As far as I can see there are four possible outcomes to Ian's approach.
>
>1. Ian solves the problem that previous philosophers have failed to solve
>and creates a single ontology that everyone agrees is how the world is.
>
>2. Ian recreates one of the possibilities that are already known about.
>
>3. Ian creates a new ontology with a different world viewpoint than those
>already existing, adding one more to the list that philosophers don't
agree
>about.
>
>4. Ian fails to create a consistent ontology.
>
>Let us consider these in turn:
>
>1. Included for completeness only. I don't think Ian expects this outcome.
>
>2. One of the two most likely outcomes, in which case it would be more
>efficient to do some homework and make an informed choice (or adopt the
>counter position above).
>
>3. A remote possibility, and probably the least useful.
>
>4. The most likely short term result, based on what I read and my own
>experience, getting to a consistent universal ontology from scratch takes
>some 5-10+ years work -- for those few who can claim some measure of
>success.
>
>The alternative approach:
>
> - Recognises that there are a (small) number of major world
> viewpoints that exist and are valid (within some range).
> - Tries to understand explicitly what are the elements that
> underpin those viewpoints and the applicable range.
> - Identifies key choices that are mutually exclusive.
> - Documents those viewpoints based on that understanding.
> - Enables interoperation between those viewpoints by
> mapping between them.
>
>We could of course pursue both of these options.
---------------------------------
Nicola Guarino
National Research Council phone: +39 O49 8295751
LADSEB-CNR fax: +39 O49 8295763
Corso Stati Uniti, 4 email: Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it
I-35127 Padova
Italy
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/ontology.html
(***updated 22/2/2001 ***)