RE: SUO: RE: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Re (Sowa):
> Bottom line: There is simply no reason to separate the two
> efforts, as Adam has suggested. The best approach is to
> combine them.
and (Pease):
>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.
Perhaps the way forward at present is to focus upon notions of context and
context-handling mechanisms, and to refine the related metalinguistic
notions.
Jay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> Cc: Adam Pease; pat hayes; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
>
> "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?
>
>