RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Matthew,
Indeed, we could separate any all the theories in SUMO so that each just
uses Chris' structural ontology, but then we'd give up the definitions of
many concepts used in each of those ontologies and they would be
meaningless labels. In contrast, I believe it would be better to have the
current situation where all the theories have been merged, and concepts
have been provided to support both the 3d and 4d views, although there is
remaining work to relate them more fully.
Adam
At 02:25 PM 8/23/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571