Re: SUO: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Adam,
I did not interpret Pat's comment as a personal attack. He simply
observed that your decision to make SUMO a monolithic ontology was
made in your capacity as the project manager, not on the basis of
the technical merits.
The idea of "agreeing to disagree" is contrary to the practice
in standards committees, where important decisions are normally
made on the basis of a consensus. In this case, your four
arguments for a monolithic ontology were soundly trounced on
technical grounds. So any decision to continue as if nothing
had happened must be considered a purely managerial decision.
John Sowa
__________________________________________________________________
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> >Pat,
> > I'm very disappointed in this personal attack.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't see it as an attack, merely a statement of the
> objective barriers to the 'unification' being proposed by John and
> Matthew.
>
> > 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.
>
> In that sense I have contributed to it myself, in a small way. But
> that is completely irrelevant to my point, which had to do with
> managerial control rather than contributions. (I presume that you are
> in charge of the SUMO effort at Teknowledge? Maybe I have been
> misunderstanding the situation at Teknowledge; if so, then I
> apologize. )
>
> > I don't understand why you feel the need to be abusive
>
> Adam, I have been abusive in earlier emails to you, I confess, but
> this one was a calm statement of what I see as the actual situation,
> accepted by many other observers. I am surprised that you find
> anything objectionable in it, since I believe that everything I say
> in it has been said by you at one time or another. (In particular,
> you have said several times that you do not understand the
> per/endurantist issue.)
>
> >rather than be professional and let your argument stand on its own merits.
>
> I was not making any arguments here. As I have said in previous
> emails, I give up making arguments to you, Adam. I have given so many
> arguments, often several times, in detail, with examples, none of
> which you have answered, that there seems to be little point in
> continuing to offer more until you respond to the ones that are
> already in the public record. (Simply observing that you do not see
> the point of the argument does not constitute an answer.) Of course,
> you are under no obligation to take part in these arguments, I
> concede; you are perfectly in your rights to go ahead pursuing your
> own line of work under your own steam, and I wouldn't want to
> discourage you from doing that. I was only making the observation
> that this course of action is not compatible with the aims of others
> to 'work together' towards some common goal, and that (as you have
> yourself suggested) it may be more use to simply leave you alone to
> go on doing what you do.
>
> Pat
>
> PS. It occurs to me that what you mean by 'professional' may be
> something like 'following the methodology I espouse'. That is the
> only way that I could take the accusation of being unprofessional as
> anything other than insulting. :-)
>
> >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?