RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Dear Jim and Nicola,
See my responses to Jim's questions below.
Regards
Matthew
============================================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
http://www.shellservices.com/
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
============================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: 11 March 2001 00:17
> To: 'Nicola Guarino'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
>
>
>
> All,
>
> Nicola has requested a vote on whether this group
> should pursue a
> monolithic vs. non-monolithic approach to developing SUO.
> Let's now discuss
> this proposal.
>
> Some of my thoughts:
>
> 1. Does this change the Scope? If so, this can be done by WG
> majority vote
> and submission of a new Project Authorization Request, but it
> shouldn't be
> taken lightly.
MW: In my view my original proposal below: i.e.
> >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.
is about means rather than ends. The key is to realise that provided
we are not talking about a collection of disconnected ontologies, but
about ontologies between which there exists a mapping for any overlap,
then we in practice have a single ontology, and you will be able to move
from viewpoint to viewpoint as you solve problems, enabling the most
appropriate to be used for the purpose at hand.
MW: In fact I also think that even within a single ontology we should apply
significant structuring, but this is a matter of engineering pragmatism.
>
> 2. Are you proposing SUO take only a non-monolithic approach,
> i.e. that it
> not work on monolithic approaches, or are you just seeking a level of
> consensus?
MW: Well only Nicola can say what he means, but in principle Ian's ontology
is just one that could be mapped in and hence integrated with the rest of
whatever is done.
>
> 3. There is a big difference between people who agree with an
> approach vs.
> people who are willing to do real work on one. Why not recruit some
> like-minded members and start working on a document with the desired
> approach?
MW: It seems to me there are at least 6 or 7 of us prepared to
make some kind of contribution to developing this kind of approach.
The issue is organising the effort.
>
> 4. How does this relate to the Merged Ontology, which is now
> under SUO WG
> control? If that could be steered to a non-monolithic
> approach, you could
> seek consensus or take a vote to do so, but it might be
> better to achieve
> this with contributed content vs. a vote. Votes without
> action won't get
> you there.
MW: Ian does not seem sympathetic to this approach, nor to understand
its need or methods, so I think something else will have to be done.
MW: I agree that a resourced plan is required before a vote on anything
more than a sense of consensus on direction is worthwhile, in which
case at this stage a straw poll, rather than formal vote might be
appropriate.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicola Guarino [mailto:Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it]
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 2:16 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> 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 ***)
>