RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Matthew,
At 10:09 AM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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?
Please, let's not make this a personal attack, ok? John has advocated
these concepts and apparently you do too. If you or he provide a
definition for them then the group can discuss them, and if there's
consensus they will be added regardless of what I might think personally.
As a reducto-ad-absurdum argument, if I say "Foo must be in the ontology,
so there!" obviously that's insufficient. John's argument has been much
stronger than that but along a continuum from there to a precise change
proposal it's closer to the former. We've had people such as Pat Hayes,
who as you know I often disagree with, also argue, I believe, that these
notions don't belong.
Adam
> >
> > >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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571