Re: SUO: RE: SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
John,
At 11:27 AM 7/21/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>This is a point I have repeatedly urged throughout the NCITS T2
>ontology workshops (1996 to 19997) and throughout the SUO efforts:
>the methodology is far more important than any particular collection
>of categories and axioms. In fact, if your methodology is good enough,
>it should be able to create the axioms and categories automatically.
>That is the only cost-effective way to produce something the size
>of Cyc or larger.
Well, we're not creating axioms automatically and I don't see how that is
reasonably possible with today's technology. Methodology is good, but just
because one doesn't have a formal one, doesn't imply that the result isn't
good.
> > Ian has tried several times to explain, as best he can, what his
> > development process is. How would you describe writing a novel? Or
> > producing a UML design? There is no cookbook procedure to developing a
> > large ontology.
>
>The answer is simple: the most successful novel writers, UML designers,
>and programmers definitely follow a systematic methodology. For novels,
>look at Isaac Asimov's list of over 500 books. And for anything
>computer related, including ontologies, I would strongly recommend
>Fred Brooks' _Mythical Man Month_.
Much as I like Issac Asimov, I wouldn't use him as a paradigmatic case for
a novelist! As a physicist turned novelist, and one not of Literature, I
wouldn't be surprised if he used an outline, graph paper or all sorts of
sensible engineering tools which would be foreign to many other writers.
I also like Brooks' book and recommend it to anyone in my group who wants
to be a senior level engineer. Brooks has some excellent tips and
guidelines but I wouldn't say he has much of a methodology. But I think we
digress. The point is really
1. Does SUMO need a codified methodology to be valuable?
2. Given our description of the "in-practice" method for SUMO, is it good
enough
3. Do we have some special methodology that isn't being shared with the group?
I'd respond, no, yes and I wish we had something so valuable that it was
worth keeping quiet (we don't, and my nature would be to share it even if
we did).
> > We're doing our best to create (as well as explain)
> > something that to our knowledge has only been done once before on this
> > large a scale.
>
>I regard the Cyc approach as a proof that ontology development cannot
>and should not be attempted on a large scale without a solid, machine-
>aided methodology.
I guess we have differing opinions on Cyc.
> > It should not be a mystery that it is difficult to explain.
>
>There is an enormous literature on the subject, including the many
>years of accumulated experience in Cyc, WordNet, and other projects.
I'm not familiar with any paper on Cyc methodology. I'm not as familiar
with WordNet methodology as I guess I should be. Could you recommend
references?
> > The best explanation should be in reviewing the different
> > versions of the SUMO, and comparing them with the sources that have been
> > cited in the comments on each version.
>
>That is the work that should be documented by the people who did
>the job. They know what they have done, and they should be able
>to put the comments together in a coherent HTML article that says
>exactly what they have done, why they did it, what the results were,
>and what more they plan to do. And there should be concrete examples
>taken from the actual work to illustrate their points.
Ian and I did write a paper for my IJCAI workshop that makes a start at
this. We're working on more extensive papers as well.
> > A new version has been posted
> > publicly at least every two months, and often at an interval of a
> > week. Ian has also cited on many occasions changes that he's made between
> > versions, as well as alerting the list to areas he plans to work on. If
> > you don't like the product, that's one thing, but please don't impugn the
> > openness or intent of the process employed.
>
>I am not impugning the openness or the intent. I am just asking for
>a better explanation than a log of changes from one version to the next.
I appreciate that John. It seemed to me that Chris Partridge's comments
attributed negative intent, but I know you haven't. We'll keep doing our
best to explain.
Adam
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571