Re: SUO: RE: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
>Matthew and Adam,
>
>I also agree with Matthew's responses to Adam's four points.
>The response to point 4 is important: developing a set of tools
>for handling modules would be useful even for a single monolithic
>ontology. Therefore, even if any of Adam's arguments were valid,
>which Matthew, Pat, and I seriously doubt, the best approach would
>be to develop the tools and methodology for handling modules (in
>addition to any work done on the axioms of the ontology itself).
>
>Bottom line: There is simply no reason to separate the two
>efforts, as Adam has suggested. The best approach is to
>combine them.
Well, there *is* a reason, though it is managerial rather than
technical. Adam is in control of the SUMO effort, this being done at
Teknowledge under his direct management; and Adam is quite unwilling
to either adopt any other methodology or to work in cooperation with
anyone who is using one. He is also, it seems, incapable of
understanding the issues that motivate those who are inclined towards
a modular approach, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence
in anyone who might be inclined to work with him. Taken together,
these seems to me to amount to an insurmountable barrier to a
combined effort, as indeed Adam has himself suggested.
Pat
>"West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" wrote:
>
>> > > 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?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes