Re: SUO: RE: Reductions Among Relations
>I strongly endorse the following point by Lee Auspitz:
>
> >There is a non-theological reason why in an SUO it is useful not to reduce
>
> >betweennesses to dyads. On this list it has been addressed by Robert
> >Kent. The "glue" among the elements of an ontology-- the relational
> >betweenness-- is the basis of the artifact. Typically, what are called
> >ontologies have varied interstitial relations ranging from
> >narrower-broader terms to strict logical entailment grounded in
> >well-developed theories. If one is to share ontologies and to traverse
> >them, it will be important to specify these relations. If the SUO is
> >conceptually disabled from doing so, it will not be "wrong", but its
> >application will be limited.
>
>To put it another way, one very important kind of information
>that should be in all the documentation is the reason *why*
>somebody did something or somebody else should care.
Thanks for explaining what it meant, John.
>Inevitably, that kind of information has the form of a triad:
>person A did (or should do) something B for the reason C.
Suppose that each ontology has documentation which says, for each
important B in it, what the reason C is for that B. And the ontology
also says that it - the ontology - was authored by A. Then everything
is binary.
But silly brownie-pointing aside, I disagree with Lee's claim. What I
mean by an ontology *IS* a 'well-developed theory' expressed in a
formalism which is based on (a semantics which supports) strict
logical entailment. Anything less than, or prior to, that is a
prmissory note or a statement of intent, not an ontology. There is
little technical point in discussing, or trying to standardize,
statements of intent.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes