RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Matthew,
At 04:47 PM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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.
Could you clarify further? I'm sure what you mean.
> > 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.
This seems like an odd approach. I don't understand how they could be
included in SUMO unless we have some definition for them - at least where
one proposes they would fit in the hierarchy.
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: 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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571