SUO: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
>John,
> There are several reasons, some of which are reasons why a single
>ontology might be considered better, others are evidence that it is
>possible (or at least not impossible).
>
>1. A standard with many choices is necessarily a less useful standard.
That is a very debateable claim (not an argument, by the way), and
one that I would disagree with. It depends on what is being
standardised. If the issue os how to get plugs to fit into sockets,
you may well have a point (though even there, the world in fact seems
happy with a multiplicity of standards each with a welldefined range
of utility). But for a standard like, say, XML, there is genuine
utility in its providing many alternative ways of expressing the same
information; the same is true of RDF and DAML+OIL.
>Instead of building tools that support one data model, multiple
>models have to be supported in order to be compliant.
No, this is a misunderstanding. The whole point of the modular
appraoch is that one only has to be compliant to ONE of the options
available.
>2. People have to make more choices with a multiple ontology
>standard. In order to choose intelligently they should understand
>all the alternatives and when to apply them (this is a weaker
>argument than the one above because it's going to be a significant
>job just to learn to apply one ontology right, but, just the same...)
I fail to see the point here. In order to apply a standard, users are
going to have to understand it, of course. BUt take a
perdurantist/endurantist modular ontology, and ask for whom the
learning curve is going to be steeper compared to a monolithic
ontology which adopts one (and only one) of the alternatives. Nobody,
is the answer. But it takes people a long time to understand the
'other' point of view, and some people apparently never make it. (It
took me several years to understand endurantism, and I know that many
people have a lot of trouble thinking in an perdurantist way.)
>3. Despite advertising to the contrary, Cyc doesn't not contain any
>truly alternative theories or contradictions. In fact, the entire
>upper ontology is in one context (baseKB). Like or dislike Cyc,
>there's an existence proof that it's possible to build a single
>coherent upper ontology.
>
>4. No one has yet shown that there are two truly incompatible and
>equally valid theories that we need to include. I realize that Pat
>might reasonably disagree with this, but we simply haven't reached
>the conclusion of our discussion on 3d vs 4d. Each of us takes a
>different view on who has the burden of proof naturally.
I give up on you at this point, Adam, if you STILL insist that there
are not two rival and incompatible approaches here. I have reached
the conclusion of this debate. There are depths of stubborn ignorance
that I am simply unable to plumb.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes