Re: SUO: RE: Re: Re: Conformance (actually,"standardsprofiles")
Adam,
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Pierre,
>
> At 12:07 PM 10/23/2001 -0500, Pierre Grenon wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
snip
> >Based on this post, it seems to me that you would end up requiring
> >people 'conforming' to the SUO to commit themselves to a rather strong
> >use of the standard. Hastily put, it seems that the effect could be to
> >forbid almost any use of the standard that would not be
> >_further_development_ of the standard, or to put it another way, that
> >you would not allow richer ontologies than the SUO as conformant. By
> >'richer', I don't just mean more detailed, but precisely including terms
> >not defined according to your {#1} and {#2] criteria, or which
> >definition could not be reduced in such fashion. So, anecdotically, note
> >that I don't take a "standard upper ontology" to be the (a?) universal,
> >all-categories-embrassing ontology.
> >
> >As far as I can see, conforming to a standard obtains merely whenever
> >one's use of the standard do not contradict or misuse the standard, say
> >SUO. Allowing conformance of an ontology with terms that are not
> >primitive terms of the SUO and are not defined in terms of the SUO
> >doesn't seems to endanger this criterion, does it?
>
> I think it would. Take the concrete example I sent out earlier today. If
> you could define terms A, B and C and not link them in any way to SUO, and
> yet still claim conformance, wouldn't conformance then be meaningless?
>
> Adam
>
I'm afraid I just don't understand the issue here, or maybe even the
sentence. I fail to see the case you're trying to make about terms
defined (presumably in the SUO?) but not linked to the SUO.
How could these terms be defined? If you're endorsing SUO, surely it's
through {#1] or [#2], so those terms are 'linked'. If your ontology is
such that on one hand it possesses terms meeting [#1] and [#2] and is
such that with respect to the use of those terms, [#3] holds, and on the
other hand your ontology records terms that the SUO ignores and that are
not (known to be?) 'definable' according to [#1] and [#2], and thus
presumably neutral w.r.t. the SUO, why shouldn't this ontology be non
conformant? How is that a statement of meaninglessness of conformance?
It just seems to me that conformance is something weak (as I said
earlier weaker than endorsement). To some extent I'd agree saying that
the illustration of this weakness seems rather trivial. Nevertheless it
seems that should hardly be an argument for loosing the flexibility of
conformance to one's standard.
yours,
Pierre
> >Couldn't your first and second clauses be bundled up together so that
> >whenever [#1] or [#2] holds, [#3] is required to obtain as well? While,
> >in parallel, provided it is established that the additional material
> >does not 'conform' in the sense of [#1]-[#2](-[#3]), this additional
> >material would indeed be trivially conformant, correct me if I'm grossly
> >mistaken. Indeed all the sweat will be in convincing oneself that terms
> >are not definable in terms of the SUO (i.e., an equivalent term
> >conforming in the [#1]-[#2](-[#3]) sense of conformance cannot stand in
> >place of this alleged new term).
> >
> >Maybe I've learnt your language using a not so 'posh' dictionnary but it
> >looks to me that the kind of criteria you're aiming at are more criteria
> >for endorsing the SUO (which presumably supposes conforming to it) that
> >conformance itself. Imhu criteria for conformance could and should be
> >weaker than for endorsement.
> >
> >yours,
> >Pierre
> >
> >Adam Pease wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > > If one were allowed to create new terms and not define them in terms of
> > > existing SUO terms, and further that one was allowed to create terms with
> > > different names but the same definitions as existing SUO terms, what value
> > > would conformance have? In such a situation any ontology could be said to
> > > conform to SUO.
> > > As a concrete example of the effect of eliminating clauses [#1] and
> > > [#2], I could create classes A, B and C with B and C as subclasses of
> > > A. If we take SUMO or IFF as the supposed standard, this ontology could be
> > > said to conform to both since those terms are not required to be defined
> > > using existing SUMO or IFF terms. Conformance would be meaningless.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > At 08:29 AM 10/23/2001 -0700, John.Velman@HSC.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Matthew,
> > > >
> > > >Well put. Both your answer to Seth, and your answer to Adam.
> > > >
> > > >John Velman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > >@majordomo.ieee.org on 10/23/2001 07:43:31 AM
> > > >
> > > >Please respond to "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > > > <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > >
> > > >Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >To: "'Adam Pease'" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>, "'Seth Russell'"
> > > > <seth@robustai.net>, Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>,
> > > > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > >cc: SWAG <swag-dev@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Re: Re: Conformance (actually, "standards
> > profiles")
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Dear Adam,
> > > >
> > > >I agree this is what you proposed, but I think it
> > > >stretches conformance too far, and so I disagree
> > > >with this part of your proposal. You could for
> > > >example argue about whether something conformed
> > > >or not. At this point there is no point to
> > > >talking about conformance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Matthew West
> > > >Principal Consultant
> > > >Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > > >Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > > >
> > > >Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > > >Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > > >Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > > > > Sent: 23 October 2001 15:23
> > > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; 'Seth Russell'; Frank Farance;
> > > > > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > Cc: SWAG
> > > > > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Re: Re: Conformance (actually, "standards
> > > > > profiles")
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew,
> > > > > One minor correction is that the conformance clause that I
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > (with subsequent discussion on this list), does have
> > > > > something to say about
> > > > > the terms that one makes up. It requires that those terms be
> > > > > 'defined' (in
> > > > > a layman's sense, not the strict logical sense because many
> > > > > 'definitions'
> > > > > will be necessary but not sufficient) using terms from the
> > > > > standard. If
> > > > > the terms one makes up are redundant with existing terms that
> > > > > simply have a
> > > > > different name, I think that would be non-conforming as well,
> > > > > although I
> > > > > now realize that my proposed conformance clause doesn't specifically
> > > > > address that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam
> > > > >
> > > > > - 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >