Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
John and Matthew,
At 12:00 PM 8/26/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I have to agree with Matthew:
>
>MW> 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.
I don't think this comment is really fair. There are many possible
metaphors or "projections" for concepts in our world. The question for an
ontology is whether those notions result in expressive power that can be
concretely expressed as deductions not possible in an alternate
formalization. Phlogiston was an interesting metaphor for energy
transmission at the time it was postulated but it turned out that it didn't
correctly predict or mirror the real world. I think the *concepts* of
firstness, secondness and thirdness are essential in any ontology. The
question is how to model them. I would offer that the notions of class,
property and relation cover the "predictive" or "expressive" value of those
concepts.
>The constant theme running through your messages has been that
>anything Teknowledge has implemented is "real world", and anything
>they have not implemented is "blue sky".
Well, this sound just like an argument instead of discussion, but, ignoring
that for the moment, it's still not true. I do believe that intuitions are
insufficient justification for including elements in an ontology but
showing a formalization in logic, and how that formalization adds
expressiveness to modeling the world in an ontology is what is needed.
>As long as SUMO has the status of being a working paper contributed
>by one group (which could be any company or individual), you have
>a right to develop it any way you see fit.
Not at all. The document is under the control of the group. If you object
to some specific terms or axioms in the new version 1.17 over the 1.15 that
is now a "starter document" please let us know what they are and what you
propose instead.
>But if SUMO is to achieve the status of being an SUO candidate,
>then the editor (and his manager) should adopt a more open attitude
>toward all proposals and suggestions. In fact, they should go out
>of their way to understand any proposal before making any negative
>comments about it.
I agree and will continue to do that.
>Bottom line: Any expert is entitled to adopt a partisan stand in
>favor of his or her working paper, but the editor of an approved
>SUO project (or the editor's manager) must take a neutral stance
>toward all change proposals, even those made by his or her own
>group.
Absolutely, what is your change proposal (stated as specific changes to the
document)?
Adam
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571