RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Dear Adam,
But if there is ONE standard ontology, then I care very much more
about its quality, and on those grounds the SUMO just doesn't get
close. I wish it were otherwise.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 14 August 2001 22:44
> To: Robert E. Kent; pat hayes
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: 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
>