RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
I certainly don't dispute your right to express your preference. I also
don't think we're starting with anything near a blank sheet of paper. I
think the difference of opinion may be more in the assessment of maturity
of SUMO than opinion of what level of maturity is appropriate.
Adam
At 10:19 AM 8/16/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
>There are different opinions about how to do standardisation. Some
>are happy to declare a standardisation effort starting with a blank
>piece of paper and a title. Others think that work should reach
>a relatively mature level before being submitted to a more formal
>standardisation process. I have participated in both approaches.
>You may guess which I prefer. I believe I have the right to
>express my preference.
>
>
>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
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 15 August 2001 16:04
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Robert E. Kent; pat hayes
> > Cc: SUO
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
> >
> >
> > Matthew,
> > That's a different point from Pat's. I care greatly about
> > the quality
> > of the product as well and do indeed think that SUMO is a legitimate
> > start. Voting against both SUMO and IFF seems rather
> > unconstructive as it
> > would leave us with no documents to focus on, just a discussion group.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 09:52 AM 8/15/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> > >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
> > > >
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571