Re: SUO: RE: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Pat,
I'm very disappointed in this personal attack. SUMO is already the
product of many people's efforts - David Whitten, Chris Menzel, Pat
Cassidy, Ian Niles, Sofia Pinto, as well as all those who contributed
indirectly by posting theories on the Ontolingua and ITBM-CNR servers. I
don't understand why you feel the need to be abusive rather than be
professional and let your argument stand on its own merits.
Adam
At 09:30 PM 9/12/2001 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571