Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
At 11:52 AM 8/22/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>SUMO has not yet begun to address a very large number of issues
>that are critical to politics, business, management, government,
>and society in general. Examples like the following are just
>beginning to scratch the surface:
>Yang Yun wrote:
> > >>Perhaps as an example, in identifying the meaning of "executive" in
> > >>the following sentence, it will probably not be useful to identify
> > >>merely events, properties, attributes, classes, actions and
> > >>similar. Instead, one needs at least domain specific knowledge
> > >>about possible concepts (and their linguistic realizations) in the
> > >>field of "politics".
> > >>"On his arrival in Belfast, there was no sign of an end to the deep
> > >>divisions between Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists on the
> > >>formation of a new executive for Northern Ireland and on the
> > >>decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons."
> > >>Nevertheless, I understand the objective of the SUO project is to
> > >>define higher levels first which will give anchors for lower level,
> > >>domain specific ontologies. This is a reasonable objective,
> > >>although it may be more effective to start from the lower levels
> > >>and combine, merge them at an appropriate time
> > >>into a more abstract higher level ontology.
>The upper level must accommodate social interactions and propositional
>attitudes (i.e., beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, suspicions, policies,
>plans, strategies, and anything and everything having to do with
>intentionality). All these issues are closely related to the topic
>of semiotics, which includes languages, logic, concepts, thought,
>mind, and every kind of "natural" sign (e.g. smoke is a sign of fire).
>These issues must be addressed right at the top, since they permeate
>every level and every domain.
>And by the way, this is not a criticism of SUMO. It is only a
>criticism of the claim that SUMO is (or will ever be) a complete
>top level by itself.
I don't know who would be making such a claim. I certainly haven't. My
belief is just that SUMO will address a very wide range of topics at a
level of detail that can both be useful on its own as well as the basic for
more domain-specific ontologies (such as our QoS ontology).
> SUMO is a fine collection of theories, but
>a lot more work is necessary to populate the lattice of theories,
>and the sooner we recognize that as our goal, the easier it will be
>to address it.
More work is needed, that much we agree on! :-)
(650) 424-0500 x571