RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Dear Adam,
Just to underline what John is saying. What he is saying would
mean that I could add a 4D ontology just using Chris M's structural
and set theory ontology, rather than having to try to merge it
with a 3D ontology.
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: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 23 August 2001 13:03
> To: Adam Pease
> Cc: Yang Yun; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> Subject: Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
>
>
>
> Adam,
>
> I think we are close to a reasonable compromise.
>
> JS>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.
>
> AP>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).
>
> If that is true, then I believe that statement should be emphasized
> right up front:
>
> "SUMO is not intended to be a complete top level by itself."
>
> I would be much happier with SUMO if its claims were more modestly
> circumscribed by some such statement. On the other hand, I believe
> that we do need an open-ended, extensible facility for including
> the foundations for anything and everything that could ever be
> expressed in any natural language. And that is why I have been so
> insistent on making provisions for the infinite lattice.
>
> JS> 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.
> >
> AP> More work is needed, that much we agree on! :-)
>
> That agreement makes me happy. Then I want to add that in order to
> accommodate everything and anything, we must also make provision
> for the infinite lattice of all possible theories (which, of course,
> will always be incomplete in its implementation, but which will also
> allow anyone to extend it whenever necessary). SUMO will be one
> component of that lattice. But the subcomponents from which SUMO
> was derived will also be in that lattice, and they can be recombined
> as needed to form other theories.
>
> John
>