RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with what John says below. It points to the direction in which I
think we should proceed.
However, I'm not sure we need to agree on one central ontology before we
start. If we can achieve mappings between the different viewpoints (in ways
such as Pat and John have suggested) then I think this is unnecessary. On
the other hand if it is true that some ontology can subsume all others, this
will come out in the wash.
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: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 13 March 2001 19:00
> To: Nicola Guarino; Adam Pease; michael.f.uschold@boeing.com;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>