RE: SUO: Re: Registers
Dear Pierre,
See comments below.
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: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre@cyc.com]
> Sent: 25 October 2001 17:10
> To: Adam Pease
> Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Seth Russell; John.Velman@HSC.com;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; Frank Farance
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Registers
>
>
> Adam,
>
> Adam Pease wrote:
> >
> > Pierre,
> > This process sounds fine to me. In fact, it's
> consistent with what were
> > already doing. I have only two caveats
> >
> > 1. We haven't yet found a compelling case for alternate
> axiomatizions (not
> > that alternate axiomatizations aren't possible, just that
> they haven't been
> > necessary to support any other component of the ontology).
>
> Well, I don't know what to reply that wouldn't be foolish,
> undocumented
> and/or irrelevant, anyway. It seems that I'm inconsequent in my use of
> the term 'alternative axiomatization' (based on C. Menzel & M. West's
> exchange). In particular, it seems that alternatives axiomatization
> would be equivalent axiomatizations of a same concept / domain. That's
> not what I meant, maybe 'rival axiomatizations' would be better. Two
> theories would be similar (actually would share a common part) and
> differ in a finite number of axioms, maybe only one. For instance, you
> can have two theories of geographical location. One requiring every
> geographical location to have one and only one object located at it,
> another would allow colocation of different objects. I meant
> 'alternative axiomatization' in this sense: arguably the same concept
> receives different axiomatizations.
> That kind of issue doesn't seems to make a case for having two notions
> of geographical location, rather two independent (inconsistent?)
> axiomatizations of that notion.
> What kind of sense does that make?
MW: I have been thinking about this since some of the discussions on 3D
and 4D representations of the universe. I think a practical approach is
to have a higher level concept that only has the common axioms, and
two specialised concepts that have the conflicting axioms. The conflicting
specialisations will then also be part of larger metaphysical views of
the world for which those different axiomatisations apply.
MW: It is worth remembering that this issue arises because we have
limited knowledge about the world, and so it is possible to make different
"guesses" about how the world is that fit the knowledge we have, but
which are not necessarily consistent.
>
> > 2. We should clarify the use of the word 'primitive'. My
> understanding is
> > that since few terms in SUO have necessary and sufficient
> definitions,
> > that, formally, they are primitive. On the other hand, all
> terms in the
> > SUMO other than Entity make use of other SUMO terms in
> their 'definitions'
> > (again with the clarification that those definitions are
> necessary, not
> > necessary and sufficient).
>
> Indeed, I was using those terms loosely. What I actually meant by
> 'primitive' is precisely 'undefinable'. Could a primitive term be one
> definable within a theory only by mean of circular
> definition? (Is that
> again a loose talk?)
>
> Now you seem to suggest that there are interdefinable terms.
> Well maybe
> that suggest that primitivity is just arbitrary and relative to your
> means, in other words, interdefinable terms are equally primitive. And
> maybe that suggests that primitivity is irrelevant, I don't know. I'd
> be happy to receive a 'lesson' on this issue, or maybe just
> pointers to
> document that discuss this in any way.
>
> Anyway, roughly a primitive term is not definable in terms of other
> terms of a given theory. Indeed you might be able to state necessary
> conditions within the theory, however to state sufficient ones,
> presumably you'd need introducing more primitive terms (or introduce
> circular definitions), etc.
>
> yours,
> Pierre
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 06:49 PM 10/24/2001 -0500, Pierre Grenon wrote:
> > >Adam,
> > >I could not help giving it a shot, for all it's worth see in line.
> > >Pierre
> > >
> > >Adam Pease wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Matthew,
> > > > Thanks for clarifying. However, if we have trouble
> agreeing on this
> > > > list when a particular term or definition belongs in
> the standard, why
> > > > would you think that we could devise a precise
> methodology for doing
> > > > so? More to the point, for you or anyone who believes
> that such a
> > > > methodology is possible, can you propose one that
> addresses the scope and
> > > > purpose of the SUO?
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > >
> > >What about this?
> > >
> > >Start from whatever you have (SUMO, IFF). That becomes
> your 'reference
> > >data librairy', right?
> > >
> > >Bring in some term candidate to addition / system candidate to
> > >merge/extension and apply some combination of the criteria
> discussed
> > >earlier.
> > >
> > >-For addition of a term: Is the candidate term an SUO
> term? (or more
> > >interestingly: is the candidate term a redo of an SUO
> term?) Is the term
> > >defined solely in terms of SUO terms? Does the
> introduction generate a
> > >contradiction?
> > >
> > >-For merging into / extending the SUO:
> > >Check wether the candidate uses SUO terms, derived SUO terms. Would
> > >fusion / merging generate inconsistencies? redundancy? [So
> far, any new
> > >material may be said to carve out further the meaning of
> SUO terms.]
> > >
> > >If addition / fusion appeared to lead to inconsistency, consider
> > >enriching the SUO with an alternative axiomatization (module).
> > >
> > >If there are parts of the system not fitting into this
> first picture,
> > >then consider extending the SUO by adding new primitive
> terms to the SUO
> > >basis.
> > >
> > >I don't see how the criteria for addition will differ from
> that used in
> > >agreeing on the 'reference data librairy', that is, a
> consensus among a
> > >community that a term is useful, handy, correspond to a fundamental
> > >intuition active in a given community of users and that
> the proposed
> > >axiomatization of the term is adequat. Could there be aesthetic
> > >criteria? Should there be a principal of economy (against
> redundancy,
> > >against introduction as primitive terms of some that could
> be defined in
> > >terms of primitive SUO terms, etc.)? For a standard ontology, that
> > >presume awarness of potential candidates needs and
> interest, doesn't it?
> > >
> > >Is that too naive or maybe too general?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At 11:11 PM 10/24/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > > > >Dear Adam,
> > > > >
> > > > >The content of a register is standardised by having a standard
> > > > >method used for how content is added to the register. There is
> > > > >also an initial content (say the SUO).
> > > > >
> > > > >ISO15926 has the following parts:
> > > > > Part 1 - Overview
> > > > > Part 2 - Data Model (part of the ontology and the data
> > > > > structure for the register)
> > > > > Part 4 - Initial content of the register (we call it
> a Reference
> > > > > Data Library)
> > > > > Part 5 - Administrative Standard for the Register
> > > > > Part 6 - Technical Standard for the Register Content
> > > > >See: http://www.iso15926.freeserve.co.uk/register/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > >The TEchnical Standard provides the methodology for adding new
> > > > >content to the register. By following this process, the content
> > > > >is deemed to be standardised.
> > > > >
> > > > >You may recall that I have been suggesting that a
> defined methodology
> > > > >for how we develop the SUO would have value.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >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
> > > > >
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
>