Fwd: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
Ian's just pointed out to me problems with my response. SUMO could
handle a 4d view but only in a trivial way by a knowledge engineer putting
everything he cares about under the notion of Process and thereby throwing
out the existing SUMO notions of identity that work on Object. That's not
a good solution. I can see merit in both 3d and 4d views and the challenge
is how to let them coexist in a meaningful way.
The good news is that this has driven home to me the actual issue, and
maybe, now that I can state it quite succinctly, we can make real
progress. I believe the issue can be stated as follows:
Joe has a left arm.
Joe had a left arm at age 10.
Joe had a left arm at age 20.
Is Joe's arm at age 10 the same object as Joe's arm at age 20?
A 3d view says yes.
A 4d view says no.
The practical issue is that each view has merit in different situations so
how do we create a formalism that allows us to express facts in either
viewpoint and yet map between them in a way that doesn't result in some
inconsistency.
Is this an accurate assessment?
Adam
>X-Sender: apease@ks.teknowledge.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:06:49 -0700
>To: "West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>,
> "'pat hayes'" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>From: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>Reply-To: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571