RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>>[Adam, to Pat and Matthew:]>
>> > The notion of asserting in advance that anything is
>> > impossible is a really
>> > precarious position to take.
>>
>>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.
No, I didn't say that. (It is trivial to come up with a single
consistent ontology: just have one category called 'thing' and no
axioms. ) What I said was that there are rival views on many topics,
and that it is impossible to just incorporate all these views into a
single consistent ontology simultaneously.
>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>
>>To: Aldo Gangemi <gangemi@saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it>,
>> pat hayes
>> <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>>Subject: RE: SUO: Proposed Changes to Merged Ontology
>>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:01:08 +0100
>>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>>Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>>Reply-To: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.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
>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
>>ruebert.ieee.org id HAA16265
>>X-Return-Path: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>>X-MDRedirect: 1
>>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: apease@pa.teknowledge.com;apease@ks.teknowledge.com
>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
>>ks.teknowledge.com id f1ACB0903202
>>
>>
>>Dear Aldo,
>>
>>See comments below.
>>
>>Regards
>> Matthew
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>>MW: So far I have found that the opposite is true, it helps to simplify
>>things. Chris P has also done work in (I think) financial trading systems
>>(pretty abstract, legal, and human specific) and found a 4D approach
>>helpful.
>>
>>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,
To MERGE them, Adam. Read carefully, please. Each of them is
internally consistent, but they aren't consistent with each other
(though there are mappings between them that allow anything said in
one to be translated into the other, and many things said in the
other to be translated back into the first; and there is a common
ground where they can both agree on a common subterminology.)
>>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).
>
>[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.
That is like arguing that the right way to make people the same size
is by cutting pieces off the larger ones.
What on earth do you MEAN by 'correcting any incompatibilities'? The
whole point is that there isn't anything to 'correct'. Neither of the
incompatible alternatives is *wrong*; they both have their uses; they
are just incompatible (in any simple sense of 'compatible').
>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.
The onus is on you, since you are claiming to make a consistent
ontology. Why don't you generate a model of your overall ontology, to
demonstate that it is consistent? I'm sure that SNARK could build one
for you.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes