RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Dear Adam,
> >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.
MW: To be clear I advocate their inclusion, rather than the concepts
themsleves.
> 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.
MW: Thank-you, I hope John will provide the definitions.
>
> 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.
MW: I suspect Pat's position is close to mine, in that I do not
understand the concepts of Firstness Secondness and Thirdness.
One reason why I would like to see them in the SUO is that
this would give me a basis for understanding them, just as it could
give a basis for understanding a 3D view and a 4D view.
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: 29 August 2001 14:31
> 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 10:09 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
>