Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
John,
At 09:58 AM 8/20/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam and Matthew,
>
>I agree with Matthew's comments (excerpted below):
>
>AP> 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.
> >
I've addressed this comment in a previous message.
>AP> 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 lattice of theories (or library of modules, if you prefer)
>plus the addition of good tools would make it easier to deal
>with these issues than any monolithic ontology could do.
The problem is that we don't have those "good tools". They don't
exist. So any proposal based on something that doesn't yet exist is flawed.
>Writing axioms is a technical task that has many similarities
>to writing programs, and 50 years of programming lore indicates
>that programs should be written in units called subroutines,
>functions, modules, packages, or methods. Further experience
>has shown the value of having libraries of programs supported
>by tools for linking, testing, and validating programs and
>interfaces.
I agree with the first part of the analogy but not its conclusion. Writing
axioms in groups or packages is a good thing and SUMO is organized in that
manner.
Adam
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571