RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Dear Adam,
See comments below.
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: 26 August 2001 23:37
> To: John F. Sowa; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> Cc: Yang Yun; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> Subject: 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.
MW: Precisely YOU THINK that firstness secondness and thirdness are
unnecessary, so that is sufficient to exclude them.
The first issue is that you set yourself up as final arbiter, despite
prolonged and continued objections to the position you take.
The second issue is that frankly, it does
not matter if they are "covered". The issue is that these concepts
need to be defined in terms of class, property and relation,
and vice-versa, even if they are redundant. Of course if you are sure
that they are redundant, I presume you already have these definitions
worked out somewhere, so why do you not expose them to scrutiny?
>
> >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
>