SUO: RE: Burden of Proof
Dear Adam and Mike,
> >Frankly, I tend to agree with Matthew
> >West that there is no one true ontology, but that one could
> build A single
> >ontology, treat it as a standard, and one could do many
> useful things with
> >it. Of course, not everyone would be able to use it for all
> of their needs.
>
> That's in fact what I've said on multiple occasions in reply
> to both Pat
> and John. If Matthew believes the same, that's great, but
> I'm not sure he
> does.
>
Mike is correct that I do not believe that the current state
of human knowledge is sufficient to create the one true ontology.
But it is not quite true that I believe we should build a single
ontology (though as I have said elsewhere, you could consider
my proposal as a single ontology - it depends mostly on what
you think makes a single ontology - if it is a single name space
then yes, if it is only one way of describing any aspect of the
world then no).
To be precise, I believe that having a single coding is useful
for reference purposes, but that it should be for more than one
canonical ontology, and should include at least 3D and 4D. I also think
that a mapping between these (at least) would be useful, so
that you could switch between the different base ontologies
to use each for what it is best for.
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: 22 August 2001 04:11
> To: Uschold, Michael F; John F. Sowa; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> Cc: 'pat hayes'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Burden of Proof
>
>
> Mike,
>
> At 05:18 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> >Adam claims that the burden of proof is on John Sowa to say
> his SUMO won't
> >work. This seems absurd. If I claim I invent a perpetual
> motion machine, is
> >the burden of proof on you to prove it does not work? Of
> course not. It
> >seems to me that the burden of proof is on you. At best you
> have conjectured
> >that there is the possiblity your ontology 'working'. First
> you have to
> >clearly define what it means to 'work', e.g. to help applications
> >inter-operate. Then you have at least to create some
> applications which
> >demonstrate that SUMO helps make them inter-operate. But you
> can never
> >actually PROVE that SUMO will be able to help all applications
> >inter-operate, nor should you have to.
>
> I'm claiming SUMO is helpful and have anecdotal evidence that
> it is. I
> agree that I can't claim, and never have, to be able to prove that it
> 'works'. In contrast, John and Pat have claimed that in
> building a single
> ontology that it will wind up being 'incoherent'. If so, it
> doesn't seem
> unreasonable that there be a concrete test for that. Again
> in contract, if
> Pat and John were merely claiming that SUMO was a bad idea
> but that they
> might be wrong and only time would tell, that would be a
> weaker claim which
> would not require a stronger argument.
>
> >Frankly, I tend to agree with Matthew
> >West that there is no one true ontology, but that one could
> build A single
> >ontology, treat it as a standard, and one could do many
> useful things with
> >it. Of course, not everyone would be able to use it for all
> of their needs.
>
> That's in fact what I've said on multiple occasions in reply
> to both Pat
> and John. If Matthew believes the same, that's great, but
> I'm not sure he
> does.
>
> Adam
>
> >Mike
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> >Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:51 AM
> >To: John F. Sowa; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> >Cc: 'pat hayes'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
> >
> >
> >John,
> > Forgive me for speaking somewhat bluntly below. I don't
> wish to offend
> >but I think you really have to be more concrete. You've
> said a single
> >ontology won't work but I think there's a burden of proof on
> you to show in
> >detail why. In contract, the SUMO proposal is a very
> concrete effort to
> >show how it will work to have a single ontology. If you
> wish to show that
> >it won't work please define
> >
> >1. ...what it means precisely in logic that it "doesn't
> work". Does this
> >mean that both P and (not P) are derivable from axioms in
> the ontology? Or
> >something else?
> >
> >2. ...a proof which shows that the definition of "doesn't
> work" above is
> >satisfied from axioms in SUMO
> >
> >Otherwise, this is an unjustified criticism. An opinion of
> value due to
> >the strength of your accomplishments and intuitions, but
> hardly a precise
> >criticism. You've made a reasonable case for why you can
> have a lattice of
> >theories. I agree that's possible too (by the way I don't
> see that you've
> >given any examples below counter to a single ontology, just
> statements
> >about a lattice). But you haven't shown that a single ontology is
> >impossible.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >At 10:12 AM 8/17/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
> > >Matthew, Pat, and Adam,
> > >
> > >And following are more examples why a monolithic ontology
> won't work.
> > >In the framework I proposed in my two talks, you can have
> a hierarchy
> > >of concept types that include Space, Time, etc. Then,
> > >
> > > 1. Informal statements are mapped to the categories in
> the lattice,
> > > which have may different detailed definitions in
> different theories.
> > >
> > > 2. Some sentences are general enough that they can be answered in
> > > either theory (e.g., "What time is it here and now?").
> > >
> > > 3. More detailed problem specifications might only make sense in
> > > one theory or the other. The system tries both mappings and
> > > takes the one that has the best fit.
> > >
> > > 4. Other problems might not have a clean mapping to
> either theory.
> > > In that case, the system reports the areas that don't
> match and
> > > carries on a dialog with the user to refine the specification.
> > >
> > >I'm not claiming that the lattice of all theories is a
> magic solution
> > >to all problems. But I am claiming that it can handle a
> lot more of
> > >them than a single monolithic ontology.
> > >
> > >John Sowa
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________
> ____________
> > >
> > >"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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Matthew West
> >
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>