SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Pat and others,
I completely agree with the sentiment that Pat expressed in the message
[http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg02473.html] concerned with
"intellectual fascism."
> There is an alternative conclusion, which is that alternative ways of
> thinking about a topic might all be equally valid and coherent, even
> though they differ from one another. The proposal to find a single
> coherent upper-level ontology then amounts to an insistence that all
> but one of these alternative ways of thinking are wrong. This is a
> kind of intellectual fascism which has never succeeded in the past
> several thousand years, and is unlikely to make progress now either.
> Maybe the SUO should focus on ways of allowing alternative
> conceptions of the world to co-exist, rather than trying to legislate
> which of them is 'right'. That approach would at least have the merit
> of providing a standard that more than a small fraction of the user
> base could use without discomfort.
>
> Amalgamating theories will be difficult, just as most large-scale
> engineering tasks are difficult. There is no magic way around this
> fact of life.
In my view, the main goal of the SUO _should_ be to "focus on ways of
allowing alternative conceptions of the world to co-exist." The goal of the
IFF approach is to realize this by developing a metalevel representation for
theory amalgamation. The IFF approach facilitates intellectual relativity.
Should this be part of the SUO? I think so.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Ballot Comment
> >Pat and others,
> >
> >Thanks. An interesting comment. Since it was rather brief, I may be
> >mistaking its meaning. However, let me give it a shot (fools rush in
...).
> >
> >The act of determining "which of the many available options to choose
during
> >the construction of an upper ontology" would seem to involve an
evaluation.
> >Now evaluation data is content of a normative kind. But it is still
content,
> >and could be encoded in an object-level ontology describing
evaluations --
> >what they are, who is authorized to make them, to what objects they
should
> >be applied, and how to make the application.
>
> Well, it COULD (maybe- see below) but why bother? The primary goal is
> to design an upper ontology, not an ontology of ontology evaluations.
> I don't see how formalising our own decision-making in one of the
> formalisms between which we are trying to decide is likely to be
> helpful in reaching a consensus.
>
> In any case, Im not at all sure whether we could in fact adequately
> represent normative judgements in a descriptive framework. (It might
> be fun to try, but it would be a research effort, I think.)
>
> >A descriptive ontology would
> >try to explain how things are, whereas a normative ontology would try to
> >tell us how things ought to be.
>
> Quite. Not the same thing, right?
>
> >For example, there might exist a normative kind of ontology that
describes
> >the evaluation of ontologies for different purposes, After all,
ontologies
> >are objects too.
>
> Yes, but so are all kinds of things that we probably don't want to
> have to deal with right away, like quantum field effects and tropes
> and God knows what else.
>
> >The IFF approach would involve, amongst other things, an
> >ability to combine ontologies in many different ways. Then the
"methodology
> >for determining which of the many available options to choose during the
> >construction of an upper ontology" might involved the suitable
combination
> >of an evaluation ontology with the ontologies being evaluated.
>
> Ah, now, that does make sense, I agree. But that isnt what was put to
> the vote, right? What we were asked to vote on was whether or not to
> adopt it "with the intent of developing it into the final SUO
> document", ie as an alternative candidate FOR BEING THE SUO ITSELF,
> not for providing a meta-theory for evaluating options for the SUO.
>
> When people insist on putting things to votes, it is very important
> to read the fine print.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Robert E. Kent
> >rekent@ontologos.org
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
> ><James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> >To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> >Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 2:44 PM
> >Subject: SUO: Ballot Comment
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >2. This message is to ballot the question, as proposed by Robert
Kent:
> > > >
> > > >"Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
commence
> > > work
> > > >on the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0 [July 20, 2001] posted at
> > > >http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf, with the intent of developing it
into
> >the
> > > >final SUO document?
> > >
> > >
> > > NO.
> > > Comment. The document is inappropriate as a foundation because it
> > > does not provide any clear methodology for determining which of the
> > > many available options to choose during the construction of an upper
> > > ontology. Also, in my (personal) view, it is much too mathematically
> > > oriented to be suitable as a useable upper ontological framework.
> > >
> > > Pat Hayes
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> (650)859 6569 w
> (650)494 3973 h (until September)
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes