SUO: RE: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Dear Adam,
See comments below.
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: 10 September 2001 17:54
> To: pat hayes
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
>
>
>
> Pat,
> Here's the message that I sent to John that you were cc'ed on that
> summarized previously stated arguments for a single ontology.
> Just to
> note, any standard has conformance requirements, and this need not be
> framed as "forcing" anything.
>
> Adam
>
>
> >Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:41:35 -0700
> >To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
> >From: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >Subject: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
> >Cc: mcdavid@us.ibm.com, rekent@ontologos.org,
> >James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> >
> >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. Instead of building tools that support one data
> model, multiple
> >models have to be supported in order to be compliant.
MW: This simply is not necessarily true. In fact it is ony true if the
choices made happen to be the right ones for your application.
MW: You make (as meny implementors do) issues of the costs of
implementation.
On the other hand I would want to emphasise the ability to support business
requirements. There is no good being cheap, if you can't do the job. It is
not even the primary criterion.
> >
> >2. People have to make more choices with a multiple ontology
> >standard.
MW: I don't see being able to make choices as bad. Ask anyone choosing a
car.
The importatn things is to be able to make those choices that enable you to
get the business job done.
> >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...)
MW: I think you may overestimate who is going to be using these ontologies
at the level of making choices. These choices will be related to business
functions/purposes, and will be embedded in systems, rather than choices
people make at run time. "ordinary users" should probably not even be aware
that there is an ontology, just as they are probably not aware today of the
data model for a system.
> >
> >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.
MW: I am quite sure that a single ontology can be created. It will just have
limited value.
> >
> >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.
MW: I dispair. But if you are right and we set off down a modular approach
the only outcome will be that we have a more managable single ontology. So
what's the problem in accepting a modular approach?
> >
> >Adam
>
>
>
> At 11:49 AM 9/10/2001 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
> >>John,
> >> First, please let's acknowledge the validity of each others'
> >> views. There have been serious arguments for what you term the
> >> monolithic approach.
> >
> >Adam, could you cite those arguments? You have always
> steadfastly CLAIMED
> >that a monolithic appraoch was of utility, but the only
> actual ARGUMENT I
> >am aware of is the observation that CYC uses that approach,
> which is taken
> >as a kind of existence proof that it is possible. And that,
> pathetic as it
> >is, is the only actual argument I have heard you, or anyone, use.
> >
> >This is not to impugne your right to hold to your opinion, Adam, to
> >emphasise the point. The issue is over "serious arguments",
> not opinions.
> >
> >>If more people on the SUO list want a modular approach then
> they should
> >>be free to pursue that. That is what I'm proposing, that
> each set of
> >>people pursue the approach they're interested in instead of
> trying to
> >>force their views on each other.
> >
> >Since the basic issue seems to me to be that the
> 'monolithic' approach
> >amounts to the imposition of a single view, and the
> 'modular' appraoch
> >seeks to find a mechanism to accommodate several views
> without trying to
> >force one of them on the others, this proposal of yours has a rather
> >hollow ring to it.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >(650)859 6569 w
> >(650)494 3973 h (until September)
> >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>