Re: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
John S. is right. There really is no alternative to the modular
approach. We need to make that work. Do we need to do this immediately?
No. But we need to build that approach into our methodology and intent
soon. Again, there is really no alternative, since the semantics one
needs will always vary. Eventually one theory or another (perdurantist
or mereotopological #3) may win out, but we will always need to
reconcile (i.e., represent and use) different theories.
Leo
"John F. Sowa" wrote:
>
> John and Adam,
>
> The modular approach would minimize the amount of overlap, so there
> would actually be very little recoding that would need to be done.
> For example, all the axioms about geometry, space, time, etc.,
> could be used unchanged. Axioms for mathematical structures,
> physics, engineering, etc., would be unchanged if they used the
> 4D coordinate system.
>
> AP > I'm inclined to think that
> > there will be a big ripple effect which will mean we'll have two
> > ontologies.
>
> That is just one more reason why it is important to have a modular
> approach. It enables you to determine exactly where the dependencies
> are for any particular subtheory.
>
> AP> The more divisions we have, the less of a standard we
> > have.
>
> That all depends on how you organize your theor(y/ies). With the
> lattice, there is a place for everything, and the dependencies
> are shown by the partial ordering (which shows the explicit
> inheritance paths from one theory to another). The separate
> modules have the effect of firewalls that isolate or restrain
> the ripple effects to just those subtheories that inherit from
> the one that was changed.
>
> JT>Is the theory that one could pick either the 3d or 4d spatio-temporal
> >module and then use the rest of the ontology modules as is (they will work
> >equally well with either the 3d or 4d module), or would all the other
> >modules in the system have to be encoded twice -- one version to work with
> >the 3d module, and another version to work with the 4d module?
>
> With a single monolithic ontology, a change to one axiom creates
> a totally new ontology, which requires everything to be tested
> to ensure consistency. You can't do unit testing on individual
> modules when the entire ontology is a single monolith.
>
> If the modules are organized in a partial ordering (similar to
> the modules of an object-oriented programming language), then
> the only modules that are affected by a change to theory X are
> the ones that inherit from X.
>
> Bottom line: The lattice of theories supports multiple inheritance
> in the same way as O-O inheritance. With the monolithic approach,
> every change creates a new monolith.
>
> John Sowa
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA