RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Matthew,
That was the substance of my previous message, which I've copied below
(with the caveat that I'd say *monolithic* sounds a bit too pejorative to
be an accurate label of any one person's position on this issue).
Adam
Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: standard-upper-ontology
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
X-UIDL: ?3~"!+/+"!p[K"!~"Z!!
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 12:21 PM 3/12/2001 +0100, West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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
> >
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571