Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Adam,
I'm not basing the idea of multiple theories on Cyc. I was recommending
it before Cyc even adopted that idea. (Guha cited my 1984 book in his
1991 dissertation as one example of the multiple context idea.) The
notion of the infinite lattice of all possible theories can never be
implemented as such (since it's infinite), but the idea is an
abstraction
of a large number of implemented systems. Every belief revision system
can be classified as such, and every nonmonotonic logic or default-based
system of any kind can be classified as an implementation of such a
lattice. And as I said in my talk, it fits very well with
Wittgenstein's
theory of language games, among others.
Furthermore, any monolithic ontology that forces the world to convert
to its terms is paddling against the tide. There are literally millions
of databases and kn. bases in the world that have their own peculiar
ontologies, and the only way to accommodate them is to give them a
migration path from where they are today to where they are more likely
to find a workable niche in the future. To some extent, Cyc does that
with their microtheory notion, which allows legacy systems to coexist
with the Cyc KB.
Some comments:
> That's a fine goal in theory but if you or others feel that's the right
> approach then I think you have some responsibility to get specific about
> exactly what terms and axioms from SUMO should be related in what way to
> particular terms in IFF.
Indeed, somebody has to do that. IFF makes room for multiple theories,
and SUMO was formed by putting together multiple theories. So one place
to start is to look at the original sources and determine whether that
breakdown is appropriate. The work that went into SUMO has already
made the theories more compatible than they were to start with, so I
would recommend that the SUMO axioms be subdivided into theories that
are the same or similar (allowing for whatever improvements were made
in adapting them to SUMO).
> Well, then I'm confused by your point. Either we start with a blank sheet
> of paper and work on those fundamental distinctions, or we critique an
> existing document. Which is it that you prefer? Or do you advocate a
> third option?
I thought that SUMO was making good progress as a small project, but I
also thought it was premature to suggest it as a candidate for the
ultimate SUO product. I believe that more work was needed, especially
in addressing the issues of interoperability with legacy systems.
The lattice of all possible theories makes room for anything, and it
shows how to move from one theory (such as a legacy system) to another
(such as SUMO or some subset or version of it) by the basic operations
of belief revision.
> >I said that the way SUMO is going is not the way I would recommend.
> >But I have suggested an alternative, which is to combine it with the
> >IFF approach.
>
> ah, but how...
As I said above, get Ian and Robert together to see how they can
partition the SUMO axioms into Robert's pigeonholes.
John