RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
Dear Adam,
It is really quite easy, you comply where you use
modules from the SUO. I would expect a number of conformance
classes to be developed, one might be a 3D set of modules,
another might be a 4D set of modules. This is all standard
standards stuff.
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: 04 September 2001 17:51
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Seth Russell; SUO
> Subject: RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> At 10:39 AM 9/3/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >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.
>
> In terms of the mechanism for performing this choice but..
>
> >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.
>
> ...this is key. At an extreme, what would conformance mean
> if one could
> accept the top term Entity and substitute one's own terms and
> definitions
> for the rest? Conformance would be meaningless.
>
> 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: 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
> > >
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>