Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft




Doug,
   Could you provide a terse English example of an elaboration you consider 
interesting?  I'm sure I can provide a conforming elaboration with respect 
to SUMO.

Adam



At 04:45 PM 2/5/2002 -0800, Douglas McDavid wrote:


>Adam --
>
>Sorry, my response was misleadingly polite.  I dispute that your example
>_is_ interesting.  It declares a subtype, but nothing about why it is a
>subtype worth discriminating - that is what characteristics it has that
>differ from other possible subtypes.  My point is that if all the terms for
>such discrimination have to come from the upper ontology, anything that
>truly elaborates on the upper ontology in any way beyond declaring an
>undistinguished subtype will be "non-conforming" by the proposed rules.
>
>
>Doug
>
>
>Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com> on 02/05/2002 04:19:56 PM
>
>To:    Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
>cc:    standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject:    RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
>
>
>
>Doug,
>    The point here is not the particular example.  You made a claim that
>"the conformance as stipulated militates against interesting and useful
>elaboration."  I provided an example of a conforming elaboration.  One
>could certainly provide additional conforming elaboration for social
>giving, giving something as part of an exchange in kind, giving for
>political favors, giving money in exchange for a tangible good etc, but
>that's not the point.
>
>Adam
>
>At 04:12 PM 2/5/2002 -0800, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>
> >Adam --
> >
> >How does this differentiate charitable giving from, say, social giving
> >(e.g. a birthday present)?
> >
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >
> >Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com> on 02/05/2002 12:56:47 PM
> >
> >To:    Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
> >cc:    standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject:    RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
> >
> >
> >
> >Doug,
> >    Let's make an example of an interesting elaboration then.
> >
> >(=>
> >     (and
> >        (instance ?GIVE CharitableGiving)
> >        (agent ?GIVE ?AGENT)
> >        (recipient ?GIVE ?REC)
> >        (patient ?GIVE ?OBJ))
> >     (and
> >        (wants ?REC ?OBJ)
> >        (inScopeOfInterest ?AGENT ?REC)))
> >
> >(disjoint CharitableGiving Transaction)
> >
> >Here are two axioms that create a new class of CharitableGiving, and
>define
> >it in terms of other SUMO terms.  It is an interesting elaboration and it
> >is a conforming one according to my proposed conformance statement.
> >
> >Adam
>
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571

Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571