Re: SUO: Some comments about Cyc
John,
As I mentioned at the SUO workshop, the following three theories underpin
the IFF, and the IFF is one formalization of these theories.
(1) Category Theory, which has been under development for 50+ years, and is
nicely expressed in the following book, amongst many others: Mac Lane,
Saunders. 1971. Categories for the Working Mathematician, New
York/Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer-Verlag. New edition (1998)
[http://www.springer-ny.com/detail.tpl?cart=9815698863736245&ISBN=0387984038
].
(2) Information Flow, under development during the 1990s, and nicely
expressed in the following book: Barwise, Jon and Seligman, Jerry. 1997.
Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge University
Press
[http://www.cup.org/ObjectBuilder/ObjectBuilder.iwx?processName=productPage&;
product_id=0521583861&origin=redirect]. The theory of Information Flow also
has strong theoretical connections to the Chu Construction of *-autonomous
categories (see Barr [ftp://www.math.mcgill.ca/pub/barr/] and Pratt
[http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html] for more on these).
(3) Formal Concept Analysis, which has been under extensive development
since 1982 (principally by folks at Darmstadt Technical University), and is
nicely expressed in the following book: Ganter, Bernhard and Wille, Rudolf.
1999. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag
[http://www.springer.de/cgi-bin/search_book.pl?isbn=3-540-62771-5#english].
Thus, most of the theory has already been well-publicized, and I, and others
who might want to join me, am only providing a KIF formalism for this
theory. The fact that it is big is in its very nature. The needs of the IFF
formalism are quite modest: the new KIF core language, a little bit of Chris
Menzel's basic ontology (which could easily be incorporated into the core of
the IFF), and a simple version of namespaces. I like the new KIF core -- it
is just right: logically expressive, yet terse. Namespaces are necessary in
the KIF encoding of the IFF, since term clashes are quite common -- I had
some discussion about namespaces with Pat Hayes on this list during the past
year. The goal is to use the IFF as the structural aspect of the SUO.
Included in this goal is the idea that the IFF Classification (sub)Ontology
(IFF version 2.0) on which I am now working, lays down a principled
foundation for a very flexible notion of "the lattice of theories." I offer
an open invitation for one and all to contribute to the IFF.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
Cc: "Leo Obrst" <lobrst@mitre.org>; "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: SUO: Some comments about Cyc
> I am happy that you are continuing your work, but I'd like to make
> a suggestion: please separate the theoretical foundations of IFF
> from what you are proposing as a standard. The theory should go
> into a series of technical reports that can be read and understood
> on their merits, while the standard should only contain the details
> of how the theory affects the interfaces that are used to encode
> and use any ontology that has the appropriate structures.
>
> Some comments:
>
> RK> The IFF is big, and version 1.0 (100+ pages) only encoded part of
> it: (1)
> > the namespace for set-theoretic classes/functions/relations in the IFF
Core
> > (sub)Ontology, and (2) the IFF Category Theory (sub)Ontology, which is a
> > baseline ontology for category theory.
>
> Why is it necessary for you to specify namespaces? That should be
> the function of a formalism such as KIF and CGs that is used to
> encode the ontologies. If IFF requres features of KIF and CGs
> that are not currently being supported, then you should inform
> those groups of your needs (or you should join with those groups
> to ensure that the appropriate features are provided).
>
>
> > The next two versions will be further additions (not revisions) to the
IFF.
>
> That is frightening. IFF is already too big as it is. Anything that
> is purely theoretical should go into the supporting technical reports.
> Anything that depends on the notation should go into the KIF and CG
> standards.
>
> > I am currently working on version 2.0 (100+ pages), which encodes large
> > classifications and their infomorphisms, large concept lattices and
their
> > morphisms, bonds, bonding pairs, etc. Due out next month.
> >
> > After that for version 3.0, I will continue work on a Model Theory
Ontology
> > for Information Flow. Due out later this fall.
>
> While you're doing that, please consider how much you can remove
> from the standzrd and put into separate technical reports.
>
> > Currently, I am doing this on my own, without funding.
>
> That was my impression, but anything of this magnitude should be
> developed by more than one person (at least one principal plus
> a couple of graduate student assistants). And it should be
> funded as something more than a hobby.
>
> John