Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
John,
At 04:48 PM 8/23/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>This is just the tiny nose of the camel creeping under the SUMO tent:
>
> > We can map domain-specific words to concepts in the SUMO much in the same
> > way the WordNet mapping is being performed using synonymousExternalConcept
> > etc.
>
>Of course you can, but WordNet doesn't attempt to give the axioms.
>That is where all the problems are.
That's true, but that's not the point of the conversation I was having with
Murray.
> > In SUMO Human is a distinct class from Group. We should add an axiom to
> > Group though that constrains it to require more than one member and Ian is
> > doing that just now.
>
>Yes, but one has to add a thousand buts.... And I don't believe that
>Ian is going to be able to handle them all. The lattice allows a
>collaborative development in a way that a monolithic ontology can
>never support.
>
>Furthermore, in Ian's presentation at IJCAI, he threw out the categories
>of Fistness, Secondness, and Thirdness (or Independent, Relative, and
>Mediating). And those happen to be exactly the ones you need to define
>what it means to be an executive. They also are needed to define what
>it means to be a team, a business, a government, an institution, or
>a society instead of just a simple collection.
It may be that these concepts are needed but I have some confidence that
they're not, both because they haven't been needed for SUMO, and because
Fritz didn't need them in Cyc. I'm always open to a concrete example
however that would show they're required in a proof.
>I don't blame Ian for throwing them out, because he didn't know exactly
>what to do with them at the time. But I blame you (Adam) for claiming
>that what he has is sufficient (or will ever be sufficient if he
>continues in the way he is going).
>
>Bottom line: If you had a lattice, Ian could continue as long as he
>likes working on his part of the lattice while other people could
>develop other parts, such as the theory of social groups and their
>interactions, and they could be merged at a later date.
People can work independently and merge later as Ian has done with the
ontologies he's found from many different sources. However, that takes a
lot of work. You can't just press a button and merge theories that weren't
created compatible with one another. Any theory of social groups and
interactions is going to need concepts that are already in SUMO like case
roles, the ontology of time etc. Maybe you could divide these up in a
clean way (although I doubt it), but if you could, what would you gain from
having several separate files which could just be concatenated into exactly
the same file that we have now?
Adam
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571