RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Dear Adam,
See comments below.
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: 17 August 2001 17:26
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> At 10:59 AM 8/17/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >Dear Pat and Adam,
> >
> >Pat wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > One thing that is for certain is, that if it is detailed
> enough to be
> > > useful, then some users will find it intrusive and
> awkward, perhaps
> > > to the point of being unusable. If it treats time
> four-dimensionally,
> > > the Barry Smiths of this world will refuse to have anything to do
> > > with it; if it fails to treat time four-dimensionally, the process
> > > control community will refuse to have anything to do with
> it. If it
> > > tries to both, then it will either become so confused that only
> > > highly trained specialists will be able to use it
> nontrivially (like
> > > Cyc), or else it will have to incorporate the kind of translations
> > > between ontological frameworks that would allow the rival views to
> > > coexist. And if it can do that, then it doesn't need to be a
> > > 'standard upper ontology', because with such translations
> available,
> > > we can translate between different upper ontologies.
> > >
> >
> >Well first I agree with the thrust of Pat's argument. The idea of a
> >standard ontology in terms of "the one true way" to describe
> the world
> >is problematic.
>
> I hope you'll forgive me for being repetitious, but, just to
> be clear, I'm
> certainly not arguing that any standard ontology is "the one
> true way",
> just that we can create one which is good enough (many could
> be created),
> and that if many people develop systems that have that
> ontology in common
> it will have tremendous advantages for communication.
>
>
> >On the other hand, a standard expression of some ontology(ies) is
> >potentially useful. Here we are not saying something about
> the ontology
> >itself, but of a standard representation of some ontology, so that
> >references to it can be made in a way that (dumb) computer
> systems can
> >recognise as being of the same thing. This basically comes
> down to agreeing
> >standard names for concepts, and defining axioms in a
> standard language.
> >
> >You might then have a standard expression of a number of
> ontologies, without
> >being judgemental about the ontology itself. I think this
> has more chance of
> >being useful at this stage in the development of ontology
> and metaphysics.
>
> The notion of asserting in advance that anything is
> impossible is a really
> precarious position to take.
MW: Where did I say it is impossible? I am saying something
about our current knowledge, not about what is possible.
> Let's say that we do fail to
> come up with a
> single consistent ontology, then we'll wind up with a set,
> plus a clear
> understanding of what the real incompatibilities are.
MW: Yes, but the current merging process transforms as well
as incorporates the source material. This can both miss and
mask incompatilibities.
> To pronounce a
> common ontology impossible from the start however, is to
> guarantee that one
> is not created.
>
> Adam
>
>
> >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: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> > > Sent: 16 August 2001 20:37
> > > To: Adam Pease
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Pat,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 05:20 PM 8/14/2001 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
> > > >>>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.
> > > >>
> > > >>That is not what I said. What I said is that different
> people use
> > > >>different ontologies, and sometimes indeed people use different
> > > >>ontologies for different purposes. The idea that any of them is
> > > >>wrong or right is what I think is mistaken.
> > > >
> > > > In your message you stated "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." I do
> not believe
> > > >that it amounts to such an insistence. If you've
> changed your mind
> > > >on this, that's great.
> > >
> > > OK, you got me. I forget writing that, and I can't find
> that message
> > > in my email archives, so can you give me more of a context here?
> > >
> > > What I think I must have been saying was that the idea of choosing
> > > one of several alternatives to be a standard amounts to
> an insistence
> > > that the others are wrong, and if I said that in those
> words then I
> > > was being careless. In a previous message I tried to make
> clear that
> > > adopting one alternative as a standard amounts to a
> declaration that
> > > the others are unacceptable, in that anyone who wishes to
> conform to
> > > the standard must change their way of thinking.
> > >
> > > >>>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.
> > > >>
> > > >>Calling it a 'standard' with the level of imprimateur associated
> > > >>with the IEEE is not just marking it as 'useful'. It is
> putting it
> > > >>before the world as a recommendation for a wide, possibly
> > > >>universal, set of applications and uses. (If this is
> not true, then
> > > >>what is the point of the standardisation process, and
> where is the
> > > >>claimed benefit of interoperability? ). To me, that is
> a very high
> > > >>standard indeed. It is not sufficient to simply be 'useful'; to
> > > >>reach that standard, it has to be clearly better than any other
> > > >>alternative, or have some clear advantage which singles
> it out from
> > > >>other alternatives. (One such advantage might be that
> it represents
> > > >>an accepted standard of usage in some community, as
> with many other
> > > >>IEEE standards; but there is no such community for an upper
> > > >>ontology.)
> > > >
> > > >I disagree. Standards don't have to be technically
> superior to be
> > > >useful (not that we're not striving for excellence!).
> The well-worn
> > > >Beta-VHS example is a case in point. A standard just have to be
> > > >good enough, and shared by many.
> > >
> > > I disagree. First, there is no notion here of 'good
> enough'. We don't
> > > know what that even means in this context, and I suspect it doesnt
> > > mean anything (ie it means something different to almost everyone:
> > > what is good enough for process engineering might well be
> unsuitable
> > > for marine biology or common-sense reasoning.) Second,
> the VHS-Beta
> > > analogy is not a very good one for you to make your case,
> since that
> > > was a case of two rival standards clashing, where it really was
> > > impossible, for essentially physical reasons, for two
> alternatives to
> > > coexist, unlike the case with software and ontologies;
> and the winner
> > > was determined by simple commercial considerations.
> > >
> > > The case for having an 'standard' ontology has not even been made,
> > > seems to me. It would have to be similar to the case that
> Microsoft
> > > makes for XP, and have similarly obvious replies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Many other ontologies could be created with the same
> coverage that
> > > >>>would be just as valid.
> > > >>
> > > >>Then there is no reason to choose one of them as a
> 'standard'. Let
> > > >>me ask you, Adam, what you think this term 'standard' means, and
> > > >>why you think there will be any utility in having a standard, if
> > > >>the world goes on using many other ontologies?
> Presumably the idea
> > > >>of the standardisation process is to somehow encourage
> many people
> > > >>to conform to the standard. So whether or not one says
> that other
> > > >>ontologies could be created, the intended aim of a
> standardization
> > > >>process is to discourage or thwart such activity. If we
> are talking
> > > >>about the sizes of electrical plugs, that makes sense. If we are
> > > >>talking about the conceptual framework of human
> thought, however,
> > > >>(which we are, in effect, here) then the idea of choosing a
> > > >>standard is both more pernicious and less obviously useful.
> > > >
> > > >An important distinction in my comment above is that other useful
> > > >ontologies *could* be created. The value in having a standard is
> > > >that we pick one that is good enough. Yes, we need to
> pick one, no,
> > > >it need not be the one true correct ontology in order to be very
> > > >useful.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, (though the case has not been made); but, more
> to the point,
> > > if it is an inferior ontology then it could be extremely
> harmful if
> > > adopted as a standard prematurely.
> > >
> > > One thing that is for certain is, that if it is detailed
> enough to be
> > > useful, then some users will find it intrusive and
> awkward, perhaps
> > > to the point of being unusable. If it treats time
> four-dimensionally,
> > > the Barry Smiths of this world will refuse to have anything to do
> > > with it; if it fails to treat time four-dimensionally, the process
> > > control community will refuse to have anything to do with
> it. If it
> > > tries to both, then it will either become so confused that only
> > > highly trained specialists will be able to use it
> nontrivially (like
> > > Cyc), or else it will have to incorporate the kind of translations
> > > between ontological frameworks that would allow the rival views to
> > > coexist. And if it can do that, then it doesn't need to be a
> > > 'standard upper ontology', because with such translations
> available,
> > > we can translate between different upper ontologies.
> > >
> > > >>>The value in having just one is that much like that in having a
> > > >>>shared human language for communication between people.
> > > >>
> > > >>You might find (if you look around on the Web, for example) that
> > > >>there is, in fact, no shared human language, but many of them.
> > > >>(There isnt even a shared human language within
> California.) And if
> > > >>you check out all the various attempts to create a
> universal human
> > > >>language (such as Esperanto) you will find that they
> have all been
> > > >>dismal failures.
> > > >
> > > >This seems disingenuous. There are differences in colloquialisms
> > > >and differences in context, but when two native English
> speakers get
> > > >together and talk, even if one is from Wales and one is from
> > > >Massachusetts for example, that they have *huge* amounts
> of shared
> > > >understanding. There's value in sharing a language even
> if we only
> > > >share 99.9999%.
> > >
> > > Of course they have shared *understanding*, but you were using the
> > > metaphor of a shared *language*. I'm sure that I share the same
> > > understanding with a native Spanish speaker that I do
> with a native
> > > English speaker.
> > >
> > > I was referring to the use of Spanish and English (and Vietmanese,
> > > Mandarin, etc.) . No proposal to introduce a single universal
> > > language has ever succeeded.
> > >
> > > Pat
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > (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
>