RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
Dear Adam,
Conceptually I think there is no difference between
having two standardised concepts/axiom sets
and choosing between them and
one standardised one and one non standardised one
and choosing to use the non-standardised one.
There is a formal (standards) difference, but I expect
most extensions/changes to SUO to come about initially
in this way, and it seems healthy to me provided the
limits of what is standardised are known.
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 20:37
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Seth Russell; SUO
> Subject: RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
>
>
> Matthew,
> I think Seth's question was somewhat different although
> he'll need to
> confirm. He seemed to address changing one axiom in the standard to
> another version that he preferred. You seem to be addressing
> selection of
> one of two alternative theories that are both part of a standard.
>
> Adam
>
> At 02:30 PM 8/30/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >Dear Adam and Seth,
> >
> >In ISO TC184/SC4 we have been doing precisely the same sort of thing
> >for at least 10 years with data models (using different sets of
> >axioms to describe things).
> >
> >A particular example is in geometry. There are two types of geometry
> >commonly used to describe engineering artifacts, BREP and CSG. Which
> >one you use depends on your purposes. It is all fine unless you think
> >that it is possible to convert from one to the other, which at least
> >generally it is not. The rest of the model can be the same.
> >
> >
> >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 20:03
> > > To: Seth Russell; SUO
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: a silly question about the new modular
> architecture
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Seth,
> > > I'd say that although you could do this, then you wouldn't
> > > be using the
> > > standard. A good analogy would be to another standard like
> > > XML. You could
> > > decide to define a new special character in the language if
> > > you want, but
> > > then tools that depend upon a particular syntax wouldn't
> > > work. You'd have
> > > to write new tools, thus limiting the value of the standard
> > > for your work.
> > > I believe this would hold true to nearly the same extent
> > > even if we were
> > > to adopt a theory lattice approach. Let's say that you
> worked in a
> > > manufacturing consortium that agree to use the "SUO 4d
> > > Temporal Ontology"
> > > "Structural Ontology" and "Mereology1" modules from a modular SUO
> > > standard. If you decided to change one of the axioms in the
> > > mereology
> > > module then your product might not work with others that
> > > agreed to use the
> > > standard.
> > > I don't believe that there are any existing tools that
> > > would perform
> > > this sort of theory compilation nor has anyone volunteered to
> > > build them
> > > but that's another story.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > At 10:34 AM 8/29/2001 -0700, Seth Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > >I must admit to being new at this ... but can I ask a silly
> > > question anyway
> > > >...
> > > >
> > > >Let's say I don't like the way physical entities are defined
> > > in the ~new
> > > >proposed~ modular architecture and want to substitute my own
> > > definition, but
> > > >still want to use the rest of SUMO. How do I do it?
> > > >
> > > >For instance suppose I want to define a physical entity as
> > > something that
> > > >has *any* physical relation to some other entity. Like:
> > > >[1] (connectedVia Knee Thigh Leg)
> > > >[2] (instance connectedVia physicalRelation)
> > > >... so based on this, there would be an axiom from which we
> > > could infer that
> > > >Knee, Thigh and Leg were physical entities.
> > > >
> > > >Do I just substitute all the axioms on the node
> > > >http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&sk
> >b=Merge-WordNet
> > >&id=95
> > >with my own, and then thread through all the other axioms
> that are in
> > >libraries that I have chosen and replace the axioms that
> refer to the
> > >constants defined on that node ? Will SUO provide me with
> tools to help in
> > >this process?
> > >
> > >Seth Russell
> >
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>