Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Adam and Nicola,
I believe that we can get a common approach that would
reconcile both views while providing a way to accommodate
the gift of OpenCyc, which Lenat & Co. have contributed.
Adam wrote:
>>.... 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*."
Nicola objected:
>I agree that - strictly speaking - the former statement above
>(but not the latter!) is incompatible with a non-monolythic approach
>(just because I assume that *an* ontology should be described by a
>consistent logical theory). I think however that the practical goal
>of our enterprise would remain mainly the same if we adopt a broader
>perspective, replacing "an upper ontology" with something like "A
>framework of carefully crafted foundational ontologies". In practice,
>such a framework would be a set of logical theories ordered according
>to a theory-inclusion relationship, as proposed (I believe) by Chris
>Menzel. The formal structure would be similar to that of the Stanford
>Ontology Library, or to the ONIONS ontology. Differently from these
>approaches, the SUO would explicitly account for a (hopefully
>limited) set of well-documented ontological alternatives, to be
>selected by the various applications that want to "plug in" the SUO.
Another approach that has proved to be highly workable in
modern science and engineering is to have a limited number
(ideally one) very general theory, such as quantum electro-
dynamics (QED), of which everything else is a special case.
For most applications, an engineer uses whichever special case
fits the problem at hand, but every one of them can be derived
as an approximation to QED.
>Ideally, the SUO interface should offer the new user a "menu"
>of i) well-documented, ii) reasonably formalized, and iii)
>sufficiently agreed on ontological choices to choose from. On the
>basis of this choice, the interface would select the right set of SUO
>modules.
I disagree with this approach because there is no common
upper level that can be used to resolve conflicts. In science,
QED serves as the top level, with special cases for plumbers,
electricians, farmers, and auto mechanics. If there are cases
where they have to interact (say a farm tractor that uses the
global positioning system for plowing the fields), there is
always a more general theory that can be used to negotiate
the interfaces.
>Moreover, the non-monolithic architecture is the only way to
>guarantee the high coverage of our initiative, which otherwise would
>necessarily exclude important players. For example, consider the
>community of so-called "linguistic" ontologies, explicitly
>"dismissed" by the recent Pat's messages...
Although I largely agree with Pat on the nature of the
fundamental ontology (something like Whitehead's process
ontology in 4D), I disagree with the speed with which Pat
dismisses ordinary language. See my response to Aldo G.
in a previous note: the ordinary language of the potter is
more compatible with what Pat and I have been proposing than
the highly specialized identity conditions that Nicola suggests.
> I believe it would be
>*essential*, for the purpose of the SUO, to be able to include
>linguistically-motivated domain ontologies in the SUO framework. In
>some cases, this may imply to adopt ontological commitments that are
>just incompatible with those useful for, say, nuclear physics
>ontology...
I agree with Nicola that it is "essential" to support the
linguistically motivated domain ontologies, but I don't believe
that they are incompatible with an ontology suitable for
nuclear physics. On the contrary, I believe that Nicola's
identity conditions are incompatible with both ordinary
language and modern science.
>I believe that an alternative could be a "minimal" common ontology
>with a few main branches, which in turn may have more specialized
>branches in limited areas. Of course, the less branches the better.
I am not sure how limited the common ontology should be. As I
have recommended, it should support modern science and provide
a mechanism for specialization to any level of granularity.
Potters, plumbers, farmers, and nuclear physicists should be
able to find appropriate specializations for their problems.
>In practice, my proposal is as follows:
I think that Nicola's suggestion with some appropriate
modifications could be adapted to the form that I was
recommending.
John Sowa