RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Dear Adam,
So Peirce and his thoughts are not part of the real world?
You seem to have gone back to trying to standardise "Your"
view of the world - a retrograde step.
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 24 August 2001 22:29
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; John F. Sowa
> Cc: Yang Yun; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> Subject: RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> At 10:55 AM 8/24/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >Dear Adam,
> >
> >Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are needed in the
> >SUMO to explain what these important Peircean concepts are
> >about - at the very least.
>
> This seems a bit circular. Our job isn't to represent Peirce, but to
> develop an ontology that helps us describe the real world. If these
> concepts are needed, it should be possible to develop a
> concrete example
> that motivates that need and shows how the current ontology
> doesn't meet
> the need.
>
> >I don't need thse concepts in a 4D ontology either, but I
> >am interested in finding out how a Peircean view relates
> >to a 3D and 4D view.
>
> I'm not interested in Peirce per se, but only to the extent
> that he or any
> other source has elucidated clear distinctions that help us
> create formal
> logical models of the world.
>
> 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
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > > Sent: 23 August 2001 22:08
> > > To: John F. Sowa
> > > Cc: Yang Yun; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> > > Subject: 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
> > >
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>