Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Folks,
Pat sets up a strawman and then knocks him down. I disagree with the
premise that by finding one ontology that one is saying that others are
wrong. I certainly don't intend that other ontologies are incorrect,
impossible or inconsistent. Merely that we can create a useful single
upper ontology and that has value as a standard. Many other ontologies
could be created with the same coverage that would be just as valid. The
value in having just one is that much like that in having a shared human
language for communication between people.
Adam
At 02:01 PM 8/14/2001 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571