SUO: Re: IFF Foundation Ontology
Adam,
Please forgive my delay in answering your questions, but I want to give them
some further thought. From the SUO and IFF ballot, it is clear that the SUO
community wants good content organized in a modular fashion. I contend that
the IFF is one approach for modular organization. However, this potential
still remains to be realized. The current version (version 1.0) of IFF has a
reasonable representation for a baseline of category theory. But, I do agree
with some of the "no" votes for IFF, that a category theory axiomatization
alone is too abstract. The concept lattice axiomatization to appear in
version 2.0, and on which I am currently working, will be a partial step in
the direction of concreteness. To concentrate my work on this axiomatization
is the reason that I request postponement of our interesting discussion.
Thanks.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
To: <rekent@ontologos.org>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:00 PM
Subject: IFF Foundation Ontology
> Robert,
> Now that the IFF vote is complete I wonder if we could continue this
> conversation. Unless I somehow missed your response, could you reply to
> the questions below?
>
> Adam
>
> >Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:08:46 -0700
> >To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
> >From: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >Subject: Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
> >Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> >
> >Robert,
> > Thanks for your replies. My further comments and questions below:
> >
> >At 04:53 PM 8/20/2001 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
> >
> >>Adam,
> >>
> >>(see the comments below)
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >>To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
> >>Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:03 PM
> >>Subject: Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
> >>
> >>
> >> > Robert,
> >> > I appreciate the very concrete message. This is exactly the sort
of
> >> > discussion needed if we're to create an actual standard.
> >> >
> >> > 1. I notice that you're using sorted quantifiers. That isn't in
SUO-KIF
> >> > nor the latest KIF group draft that Michael Gruninger has prepared,
> >> > although they are in the version at
> >> > <http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html#6.3>. You don't appear to
cite
> >> > which version of KIF you're using in your IJCAI paper or proposal for
> >> > SUO. Which version do you use?
> >>
> >>Comment #1:
> >>I am anticipating what will be in the new KIF. See Chris Menzel's
comment
> >>
> >> > Looks good to me. I like your restricted quantifiers (and
descriptions)
> >> > but the syntax for them is not settled. Most likely it will be
> >> > something like (<quant> (<var>+ <sentence>*) <sentence>).
> >>
> >>in a personal message to me. These restricted quantifiers can be taken
as
> >>simple abbreviations with the obvious expansions: conjoining for the
> >>existential quantifiers and anteceding in an implication for the
universal
> >>quantifier.
> >
> >thanks for the clarification
> >
> >> > 2. You've shown below how a natural language sentence could be
expressed
> >> > in a way consistent with a version of KIF and the IFF. However, it's
not
> >> > clear (to me at least) what value is being added by IFF itself.
> >>
> >>Comment #2:
> >>The IFF Foundation Ontology defines a rather elaborate semantic
mechanism.
> >>This example gives an indication of how to translate an ontology
expressed
> >>in the new KIF to the very precise terminology of the IFF Model Theory
> >>(sub)Ontology (to be released in version 3.0 of the IFF Foundation
> >>Ontology). Although there are many IFF statements needed to represent
the
> >>KIF statement, these IFF statements are *extremely simple* (there are
> >>neither quantifiers nor logical connectives, just membership assertion
and
> >>function application). As a result, the IFF representation can easily be
> >>represented in standard programming languages.
> >
> >Could you show an example representation in KIF and then in Java or C or
> >some other common language? This seems to me a very strong and
> >non-obvious claim. Expressing the semantics of any logical language in a
> >procedural programming language seems rather difficult to me.
> >
> >
> >>Once the KIF ontology is
> >>internalized in IFF, it then corresponds to one particular formal
concept in
> >>the truth concept lattice indexed by that ontology's 1st-order language.
> >>Meets and joins in this lattice allow us to automatically combine this
> >>ontology with any collection of ontologies. For example, if the SUMO
> >>were resolved into several meaningful component ontologies, and these
were
> >>individually translated to the internal IFF representation, then the
meet in
> >>the truth concept lattice would correspond to the IFF representation of
the
> >>whole SUMO. Note, a collection of ontologies are inconsistent when their
> >>meet is the bottom formal concept.
> >
> >How would this different from simply concatenating two KIF files and
> >checking for a contradiction? How does IFF itself support a merge? As a
> >concrete example, let's say we have
> >
> >------
> >file #1
> > (instance Adam Person)
> >------
> >file #2
> > (instance Bill Human)
> >
> >In this trivial case one concatenates the two ontologies and it's a merge
> >but a poor one. There's no way to know that Human and Person are
> >equivalent unless a human being looks at the two files and makes an
> >educated guess. One can imagine more complex cases but the issue for a
> >merge is just this ultimately.
> >
> >> As a second benefit, once an ontology is
> >>internalized in IFF, 1st-order interpretations allow us to translate
between
> >>various truth concept lattices.
> >
> >Could you explain this in more detail, maybe with an example? I expect
> >many folks don't know what a "truth concept lattice" is.
> >
> >>As a third benefit, we have the opportunity
> >>to combine ontologies using colimits. This allows the summation and
fusion
> >>(quotienting) of ontologies.
> >
> >Could you provide explanation and an example for this as well.
> >
> >> As a fourth, more conjectural benefit, Murray
> >>Bent (Yang Yun) is interested in defining a lower metalevel module for
game
> >>semantics. This could possibly correspond to the game-theoretical
semantics
> >>discussed by John Sowa
> >>[http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/misc/mathw.htm#Model].
> >
> >That sounds like a useful effort but how is it an example of the utility
> >of IFF?
> >
> >> > You use
> >> > the term 'event' in the formalization below but no such term appears
in
> >> > IFF. In contrast, SUMO does have notions of events (and times, roles
of
> >> > actors etc) which provide a definition for that term.
> >>
> >>Comment #3:
> >>I am assuming that this example is just a fragment within an ambient
> >>ontology,
> >>such as the SUMO, that has an "event' term.
> >
> >Then I would take this either as simply a task that remains for someone
to
> >merge the SUMO content under the IFF structure, in order to provide the
> >ontological content that is relevant for real-world application modeling,
> >or as a disadvantage of IFF since it lacks this necessary content.
> >
> >> > The problem (I would say) with this formulation as well as what you
> >>provide
> >> > below is that there is no upper ontology being used. The term
'event' is
> >> > meaningless because it is just a token with no formal definition. In
> >> > contrast, the SUMO formalization would be
> >>
> >>Same comment #3.
> >>
> >> > SUMO already has definitions for concepts like Eating, the stuff an
object
> >> > is made of ('material') etc. Instead of being just tokens, the
concepts
> >> > have some meaning by virtue of their associated axioms. That's why
the
> >> > list of statements prior to the formalization of the English example
> >> > sentence is so small - all those concepts already exist in SUMO.
> >>
> >>Same comment #3.
> >>
> >> > So, in summary, what does the IFF version of the example provide us
that
> >> > the SUO-KIF-only version does not?
> >>
> >>Same comment #2.:
> >
> >Thanks again for the replies. I still haven't understood the advantages
> >of IFF but hopefully another round of explanation will get us closer.
> >
> >ADam
> >
> >
> >>Robert E. Kent
> >>rekent@ontologos.org
> >
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>