RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
Comments below:
At 09:11 AM 8/22/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
>Let me collect the critical bits and dump the rest.
>
>
>
> > >MW: Where did I say it is impossible? I am saying something
> > >about our current knowledge, not about what is possible.
> >
> > Pat has been quite forceful in asserting that we can't come up with a
> > single consistent ontology. Some other folks have also
> > asserted that we
> > shouldn't be working on creating a single ontology. Maybe I
> > responded too
> > strongly as to your position. One message in which you appear to say
> > this(aggreeing with Pat, my emphasis in '*') is
> >
> >
> > >From: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > >
> > >MW: However, I don't think I would want to argue for a 4D
> > view INSTEAD OF a
> > >continuant/occurrent view, or a Piercean view (which I take
> > to be different
> > >again - subject to correction by John). Rather I think we
> > should develop
> > >each and relate them to each other, rather than the current
> > process of
> > >trying to merge them into one.
> > >
> > >MW: Pat said some time ago that it is probably ***not
> > possible*** to merge
> > >them,
> > >and most of the discussion since has been convincing me he
> > is right. Equally
> > >people clearly do use different metaphysical paradigms in
> > developing various
> > >ontologies, and I doubt if that is about to stop, what ever
> > we do here, so
> > >relating these different paradigms would be a general
> > service (and we might
> > >learn something).
> >
>
>MW: OK fundamental principles/beliefs first.
>
>1. We live in a world/universe that is what it is. In theory
>it is possible to create a model/ontology that mirrors it.
>Therefore a single ontology is possible (theoretically).
>
>2. Our knowledge of the world is incomplete. In practice we
>have a number of different views of the world that are limited
>and each is probably useful for particular purposes.
>
>3. Some of these views are compatible, some are not. E.g. 3D/4D
>as above, or wave and particle theories of light.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > 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 position I would take however is that the merging process
> > is evaluating
> > and then correcting any incompatibilities. If there is a specific
> > incompatibility in the SUMO proposal (i.e. axioms that allow
> > us to deduce
> > both P and (not P)) we'd love to have that pointed out.
>
>MW: But you have not incorporated valid alternative views. For example
>you have no 4D view of the world in the SUMO. You have selected 3D
>and that's it. I don't think you can merge a 4D and 3D view. You can
>only have them as alternatives, with perhaps a (partial) mapping in between.
The definition of Process
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Process&caseSensitive=on&skb=Merge-WordNet>
does allow for Object(s)
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=Merge-WordNet&id=51>
to be participants in the process. I don't think 3d and 4d are
necessarily as incompatible as you assert them to be, but let's work it out.
Maybe we can work this through concretely. Let's come up with some
statements in English and I'll try to formalize them. Then we'll have
three possible outcomes
1. I'll show how they can be modeled with terms from SUMO
2. we'll find that there is some error or gap in SUMO and we'll add the
appropriate definitions
3. we'll find that there is a genuine incompatibility between the two
paradigms that can't be bridged, and we'll define precisely the logical
forms that are incompatible.
>MW: The issue is not so much one of consistency (both P and (not P)) as
>accuracy
>- does the ontology reflect how the world/universe is, and over what range
>is it a good reflection. 3D and 4D ontologies operate over different,
>overlapping ranges.
>
>MW: You could argue that doing this would make them part of one ontology,
>and I would agree to some degree. However, I think it is more useful to
>see them as different ontologies with mappings, largely for the reasons that
>John puts forward.
If we really do find that they can't be mapped to each other, then I'll be
happy to have the outcome that we define two different theories that can be
plugged into the rest of SUMO.
Adam
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571