Re: SUO: Re: Conformance
>Pat,
> One clarification
>
>At 10:14 AM 10/10/2001 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>>> > > > AP = Adam Pease
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > AP: - Implementations of SUO are "ontologies" or
>>>>"information models".
>>>> > > > - A conforming implementation is an ontology or
>>>>information model that:
>>>> > > > [#1] Uses terms as defined by the SUO, or
>>>> > > > [#2] Uses terms that are defined (using SUO-KIF)
>>>> > > > entirely by other terms in the SUO
>>>> > > > [#3] Is consistent: a contradiction cannot be
>>>>derived by means
>>>> > > > of first-order logic from the set of
>>>>statements belonging
>>>> > > > to the implementation and the SUO.
>>> > > > >
>>
>>There are several things that need to be corrected here. First, it
>>obviously isn't appropriate to insist that conformance requires
>>using ONLY terms from the SUO. After all, it is only supposed to be
>>an UPPER ontology, not the whole thing. Conformance should require
>>rather that all (?) terms 'fit underneath' terms from the SUO,
>>maybe; but that would need to be made precise.
>
>Please note the 'or' at the end of [#1]. What this in fact says is
>that terms must either be in the SUO, or 'fit underneath' them.
'Fit underneath' does not mean 'defined entirely in terms of',
obviously. Everything fits underneath 'entity', but not many concepts
can be defined using only 'entity' as a starting point.
In general, one does not expect lower concepts (in the sense of
vertical comparison used in 'upper ontology') to be definable in
terms of concepts higher than them in the abstraction heirarchy.
Want to try again?
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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