RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Pat,
At 03:11 PM 8/31/2001 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>Pat,
>>
>>At 12:53 PM 8/28/2001 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>>>Pat,
>>>>I agree with you that a function that maps things to their temporal
>>>>subparts would be better than reifying the temporal subpart. Thanks
>>>>also for the reference. I've ordered a copy.
>>>>Since creating a temporal subpart doesn't actually conflict with any
>>>>axiom in SUMO I don't see the problem that you're pointing out below.
>>>
>>>Do you mean, you don't understand it because SUMO doesn't have an
>>>conflict? What I don't understand is how you are going to explain to a
>>>potential user of SUMO what a 'physical object' is. An ontology isn't
>>>just a set of axioms: it is also a perspective on how to extend and
>>>utilise those axioms to create other, new, axioms. Users need to be able
>>>to understand what the overall perspective is, so you need to be able to
>>>say what it is.
>>
>>Maybe I'm just feeling mischievous today, but this is too good to pass up.
>
>OK, I walked into that one. I shouldn't have used the form of words "an
>ontology is....". What I should have said is that a useable ontology ( in
>the presumed spirit of the SUO) needs to be more than just a list of axioms.
>
>Let me try to say what I mean more carefully.
>
>Suppose someone presents you with some axioms, ie a formal ontology. One
>might ask them to, purely as a reasonable courtesy, explain in English (or
>some other human-readable form) what the axioms are intended to be about,
>by way of documentation; particularly if one of the things you are
>supposed to be able to do with them is to extend them by adding other
>axioms. You might also ask them to say something about the 'style' they
>are written in; the basic ontological (in the informal philosophical
>sense) presumptions they are based on, the approach they use to
>description, and so on. All this, and more, could be reasonably regarded
>as an essential part of a well-documented ontology. However, if the person
>were to say all this not as helpful documentation of their intent, but as
>a *claim* about the *actual content* of those axioms, then they would be
>saying something very different, and much harder to justify. Hence my
>earlier message:
I agree with you. Style and intent are important in practice. We may try
to limit the need for information communication of intent as a necessary
element in understand an information model, and I think the formalization
that ontology requires encourages that, but ultimately, some further
human-to-human explanation is likely to be needed to understand at least
part of any ontology. Of course, I don't think this necessarily supports
or contradicts either of our opinions about combining 3d and 4d but it's
nice to find agreement where we can!
By the way, I know I owe you a response on your detailed earlier message
but I'm still having trouble finding something that can move our discussion
forward that hasn't been said already. I picked up a copy of Loux's
metaphysics so maybe reading his chapter on endurantism and perdurantism
this weekend will generate some ideas. I also spoke to Fritz recently and
he indicated he might talk with you about this notion. He agrees with me
that the two formalizations can coexist but I just mention that by way of
showing that at least I'm not a voice in the wilderness on this issue, not
as an "appeal to authority".
Adam
>>In an earlier message you said "What that English text ought to say is
>>that this is what the formal strings are *intended* to mean. What they
>>*actually* mean, if anything, is whatever can be inferred by a valid
>>first-order reasoner from the axioms that are provided, and that is ALL.
>>All the rest is hope and aspirations and hand-waving. "
>
>
>Pat
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>(650)859 6569 w
>(650)494 3973 h (until September)
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571