RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Dear Adam,
OK so it is fine to add (back) Firstness Secondness and
Thirdness, but at least some initial axioms are necessary
before this is done. Right?
Can you oblige John?
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: 31 August 2001 20:35
> 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 02:30 PM 8/30/2001 +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: 29 August 2001 18:09
> > > 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 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.
> >
> >MW: I think the concepts are important concepts for at least
> historical
> >reason that should be included. I do not understand the
> concepts fully
> >and would wish to understand them better. By them being placed in the
> >eventual SUO I would be able to discover what they meant by
> their relations
> >to other concepts.
>
> "placed in the eventual SUO" would require that they have
> some definition
> which would include the "relations to other concepts". In terms of a
> concrete next step I'd be happy to have a proposal that
> defines them in
> terms of SUMO or IFF. That would then be a concrete proposal
> that the
> group could evaluate.
>
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> >MW: We would understand what they meant precisely from the axioms
> >that relate them, so that we can each see what the other is saying
> >in our own terms. So constructing the axioms is precisely what is
> >requrired. But you can't do that if the concepts are nto present.
>
> Maybe this is a chicken and egg problem. We do have these
> named notions
> that Peirce called Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. I
> believe that
> they correspond to the notions Independent, Relative and
> Mediating that
> John Sowa has in his ontology at
> <http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm>. I created a
> KIF version
> this ontology at
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>
> which we then augmented with many other fundamental notions.
> That version
> evolved into SUMO. We haven't had John's feedback on how to
> define these
> terms. After a while, it was clear that without axioms or
> relations, these
> notions, however worthy in a philosophical sense, added no
> inferential
> power to the ontology and were therefore removed.
>
> So, these concepts are present in the older version of the ontology
> referenced, and I'd welcome any proposal as to how they might
> be defined.
>
> Adam
>
>
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>