Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Adam,
That makes no sense:
> 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.
Separating the theories doesn't give up anything. You just put them
in a lattice that shows exactly how they are merged to form SUMO.
At the top, you have the theory of all tautologies, under that you
have simple, independent theories, and under any theory you have all
the other theories that depend on it. SUMO inherits from all the
theories that went into its construction, and any ontology that uses
SUMO falls inherits SUMO and everything that SUMO inherits.
What you gain by separating the theories is an enormous increase
in flexibility. Anyone who wants to replace one of the upper theories
can do so without impacting any theory that is independent of it.
Then you can push a button to derive a new sibling to SUMO that
replaces one or more of its constituent theories.
If Matthew wants to replace the 3D axioms with 4D axioms, the lattice
shows exactly which ones need to be replaced.
It's so obviously the right way to go, and you have not given a single
reason why you object to it.
John Sowa