Re: SUO: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Adam,
I agree with Pat on these issues. The only difference between
him and me on this point is that I'm slightly more polite.
John
_______________________________________________________________________
pat hayes wrote:
>
> >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