SUO: Re: IFF Foundation Ontology
Robert,
Ok, looking forward to resuming when you have time.
Adam
At 12:06 PM 9/1/2001 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
>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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571