RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
At 11:50 AM 8/20/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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.
Pat has been quite forceful in asserting that we can't come up with a
single consistent ontology. Some other folks have also asserted that we
shouldn't be working on creating a single ontology. Maybe I responded too
strongly as to your position. One message in which you appear to say
this(aggreeing with Pat, my emphasis in '*') is
>From: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
>To: Aldo Gangemi <gangemi@saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it>,
> pat hayes
> <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Proposed Changes to Merged Ontology
>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:01:08 +0100
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Reply-To: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ruebert.ieee.org id
>HAA16265
>X-Return-Path: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>X-MDRedirect: 1
>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: apease@pa.teknowledge.com;apease@ks.teknowledge.com
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ks.teknowledge.com
>id f1ACB0903202
>
>
>Dear Aldo,
>
>See comments below.
>
>Regards
> Matthew
[snip]
>MW: So far I have found that the opposite is true, it helps to simplify
>things. Chris P has also done work in (I think) financial trading systems
>(pretty abstract, legal, and human specific) and found a 4D approach
>helpful.
>
>MW: However, I don't think I would want to argue for a 4D view INSTEAD OF a
>continuant/occurrent view, or a Piercean view (which I take to be different
>again - subject to correction by John). Rather I think we should develop
>each and relate them to each other, rather than the current process of
>trying to merge them into one.
>
>MW: Pat said some time ago that it is probably ***not possible*** to merge
>them,
>and most of the discussion since has been convincing me he is right. Equally
>people clearly do use different metaphysical paradigms in developing various
>ontologies, and I doubt if that is about to stop, what ever we do here, so
>relating these different paradigms would be a general service (and we might
>learn something).
[snip]
> > 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.
The position I would take however is that the merging process is evaluating
and then correcting any incompatibilities. If there is a specific
incompatibility in the SUMO proposal (i.e. axioms that allow us to deduce
both P and (not P)) we'd love to have that pointed out.
Adam
> > 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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571