RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Dear Adam,
Precisely.
There is nothing about *an* upper ontology that says
it cannot be internally structured to aid management and to
provide convenient access to different viewpoints. The only thing
that *an* would seem to exclude to me is a collection of disconnected
ontologies, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that, so there isn't
anything for you to object to.
Regards
Matthew
===============================================================
Matthew West http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Principal Consultant Shell Visiting Professor
Operations & Asset Management The Keyworth Institute
Shell Services International The University of Leeds
http://www.shellservices.com/ http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
===============================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 12 March 2001 15:28
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>