RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Dear Adam,
I might equally enquire where it says that the SUO shall be monolithic.
Regards
Matthew
============================================================
Matthew West - Principal Consultant
Operations & Asset Management, Shell Services International
Shell Visiting Professor
The Keyworth Institute, Leeds University
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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 11 March 2001 18:00
> To: Douglas McDavid; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
>
>
>
> Doug,
> I don't follow you. What portion of that text indicates a goal of
> separate modules for the *upper ontology*? That quote merely
> says that
> other ontologies which are domain specific can be built off
> of the SUO.
>
> Adam
>
> At 08:18 PM 3/10/2001 -0700, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>
>
> >Adam --
> >
> >The reverse position is indicated by the following wording from the
> >Scope and Purpose document:
> >
> >http://suo.ieee.org/scopeAndPurpose.html
> >
> >"An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta,
> generic, abstract
> >and
> >philosophical, and therefore are general enough to address (at a high
> >level) a
> >broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific to given
> domains will not be
> >included; however, this standard will provide a structure
> and a set of
> >general
> >concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial,
> >engineering, etc.)
> >could be constructed."
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>@ieee.org on
> 03/10/2001 04:13:35 PM
> >
> >Please respond to Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >
> >Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >
> >
> >To: Nicola Guarino <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>,
> > <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> >cc:
> >Subject: Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Nicola,
> > Neither the approach of a single common ontology, or a catalog of
> >related ontologies has been proven to be the right approach,
> so either or
> >both may turn out to be valid. However, I would say that a
> single common
> >ontology, to the degree practical, is the goal of this
> group, and has been
> >voted on when the PAR was approved. I have found that there can be
> >disagreement on wording that I thought was very clear, but
> the sections
> >that seem to indicate this are (with my emphasis by
> bracketing with '*'s):
> >
> >"This standard will specify *an* upper ontology that will enable
> >computers..."
> >
> >"The SUO will play the role of a neutral interchange format
> whereby owners
> >of existing applications will be able to map existing data
> elements just
> >*once to a common ontology*."
> >
> >The group is of course free to change its mind...
> >
> >I would say that Cyc falls somewhere in the middle on this
> issue and I
> >suspect that will be the result for the SUO as well - a
> largely common
> >ontology with a context mechanism that allows for a few
> different, although
> >compatible, approaches in limited areas.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >At 11:15 PM 3/10/2001 +0100, Nicola Guarino wrote:
> >
> > >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 ***)
> >
> >-----------------
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
> >
> >
>
> -----------------
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>