SUO: Re: Conformance, Modularity, Compartmentality
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JV = John Velman
MW = Matthew West
JV: I haven't been able to keep up with all the correspondence
on conformance, so if these remarks parallel someone else's
please accept my apology. Except for a note from Frank (IIRC)
mentioning that the conformance had to do with an implementation
of the standard, not with the standard itself, I've seen nothing
that pins down just what is being discussed (although much of the
discussion has been interesting, nevertheless).
JV: Referring to the PAR, the scope states that this standard
will "specify an upper ontology ..." It goes on to say
that an "ontology is similar to a dictionary or glossary,
but with greater detail and structure ..." The scope does
not delineate any other application or implementation that
the standard applies to.
The point that I tried to make is that the standard formers,
faced with a complex "ontology as FOT", or WOT~, are very
unlikely to be capable of dealing with its complexity,
for instance, evaluating its approximate consistency,
and so on, with themselves building a minimal API
of some sort.
Let me point out that this can be taken as a "modular-critical"
aspect of our task. In other words, even though I would never
argue against the basic wisdom of so-called modular strategies
like stepwise refinement and top-down programming in design,
it does not follow that every way of splitting up a problem
domain is equally good. In particular, I would be willing
to argue that a certain form of "come-apart-mentality" has
already gone too far to be viable, to wit, one that tries
to detach every product from the process that produces it.
JA: We also hear the following:
JA: 1. An ontology is nothing but a "first order theory" (FOT).
Some say a FOT is a "set of sentences" (SOS).
Some say a FOT is a set of axioms that |- a SOS.
JA: 2. An ontology as FOT is supposed to be "about" something,
say, a "world of things" (WOT). Some people say that
the model theory of the FOT says what WOT it's about,
but the law of unintended consequences warns us never
to forget the non-standard WOT's. My own experiences
with the coriolis farces that bear on every one of the
prevailing semiotic winds that winds its way across the
whirling superficialities of this planet reminds me, too,
that a "formal model" is yet another whirlwind of signs,
and nothing very like any real object in any real WOT.
JV: The scope of the PAR sounds much like the scope for a terminology standard.
What is the implementation of a dictionary -- the dictionary itself?
JA: As with most things in reality, the model precedes the theory.
The implementaion, with respect to which the theory is but
a partial summary, is known as "usage", as she is spoke.
JV: While the parallel isn't exact, it seems to me that it is pretty close.
As an example, ISO1087 Terminology -- Vocabulary, is a standard that
"establishes a basic vocabulary for terminology science and its
practical applications". ISO1087 has no conformance clause.
It has a scoping statement that it is applicable to
terminological activities.
JV: The Purpose clause of the PAR does state that "Applications based on
domain-specific ontologies that are compliant with this standard will
be able to interoperate (to some degree) by virtue of the shared common
terms and definitions". Compliance and conformance are often used as
synonyms, more or less, so this seems to imply that we are thinking
about a standard that will specify requirements on domain-specific
ontologies.
JV: Seems to me that this is not well stated, and I'm sorry I missed it at the time.
It seems to me that the meaning of this statement could have better been expressed
by: "Applications based on domain-specific ontologies that use terms and definitions
from this standard will be able to achieve some degree of interoperability".
JV: Perhaps I'm befuddled by this partly because I have been dwelling in a part of the
standards world where conformity means strictly (ISO IEC Guide 2, Clause 12.1)
"fulfillment by a product, process or service of specified requirements".
JV: Putting the horse on the other end of the cart, if we really want to have
conformance, we need a provision in the scope of the standard specifying
the particular products, services, or processes that are intended to be
covered -- secondary ontologies, applications using ontologies? -- and
a clause specifying the requirements on them.
JV: The discussion has been about conformance of other ontologies to the SUO.
This still strikes me as a strange concept. However, to accomplish this,
perhaps the title of the standard should be: "Standard Upper Ontology and
Requirements for Lower Ontologies." Assuming we eventually use a modular
form (which John Sowa and others recommend, and I endorse), this framework
could become very interesting.
JV: Stylistically the right way to do this will be for the Scope to delineate
the products, services, or processes covered, followed by a clause stating
the requirements on them. The conformance statement might then be like
that in the scope of IEEE1320.1 (IDEF0) which says "A model or diagram
conforms to this standard if it adheres to all mandatory provisions
(marked by the verbs 'shall' or 'is') of this standard".
JV: This strikes me as a more complicated and somewhat different job than
just creating the upper ontology itself, which seems hard enough.
JV: On the other hand, it would be useful to have a clause -- possibly an
informative annex, rather than a normative clause -- describing how the
Upper Ontology can be used in support of a domain specific ontology.
JA: This would require the group to become familiar
with some of the domains of practice to which
they seek to dictionate.
MW, addressing JV:
Well I think I am with you. In this discussion I have
been taking the position that the SUO is essentially a
posh dictionary, and that the only sensible conformance
statement you can make is of using the terms in it with
the meaning given in the "dictionary", rather than some
other meaning.
JA: Once again, let me try to establish the totally naive point
that the only reason why anybody would ever desire to conform
to the dictations that happen to be recorded in some dictionary
is if that dictionary conforms to something independent of itself,
like actual usage in some community. Moreover, the best reason why
anybody would want to conform to the usage embodied in some community
is if that usage enables that community to conform to some reality
independent of itself. None of this robs dictionaries of their
power to innovate and to regulate usage, but it does require
dictionary makers to be cognizant of what it is they can
and cannot have power over.
MW: I agree.
I will then consider this point, or this line, established between us.
With so much congruity, I probably oughta quit while I am still ahead.
Maybe for just a little while ...
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤