Re: SUO: Clause and Linguistics
John Bateman's summary of the linguistic issues (which,
as anyone who has studied them realizes, only begins
to scratch the surface) illustrates the very difficult
problems that arise when we try to axiomatize any subject.
Amateurs in any field (i.e., anyone who has not studied
it beyond the undergraduate level) may think it is easy.
But people who work in the field (and who would really
need the axiomatizations) know how multiple incompatible
views proliferate.
I endorse John's conclusion:
JB> -- it still keeps a whole bunch of linguists in work and
> they've been going at it for quite a while; so why should
> the SUMO be putting its big feet there when there are
> enough hard upper-level issues to go round?)
My only addition is that I don't believe that getting
agreement on those "hard upper-level issues" is any
easier.
JB> Even if there is some theory of linguistics which is
> happy with the kind of statement embodied in the above
> rule (what is the class "Subject" by the way?), why
> should it (and not some other: or do all get thrown in?)
> be engraved in SUMO.....?
Adam Pease wrote:
AP> I agree, there is no One True Ontology. I believe
> there are many, and we're just trying to find one.
This statement makes me happy. As long as SUMO is treated
as just one theory among many with no more status than any
other, then we can all agree. As I have repeated many
times, SUMO is a great resource. And so is Cyc and many
others. All of them should be made available.
AP> So the point of a non-monolithic set (lattice?) of
> logically integrated ontologies is that YOU, the ontology
> application developer or community shared-semantics
> developer (or metadata developer) pick the theories that
> are appropriate to you.
Please read (or reread) my slides on negotiation instead of
legislation:
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/negotiat.htm
The technology is available for semi-automated tools to aid
in the process of determining which, of many possible,
versions are suitable for the given task.
AP> The problem is then that "Y'ALL" ontologists have to
> find a way to translate between them if you want to
> communicate. That's a hard problem, so it's better to
> try to get agreement up front. That's the point of this
> effort.
A little observation: Jews, Christians, and Moslems all
accept the Jewish Bible as the word of God. Christians and
Moslems accept the New Testament as the word of God. And
Moslems have added the Koran. The amount of agreement
among these three groups is enormous. But there still
remain some very thorny issues that break out in the
prototypical "religious wars".
I agree that translating is not easy, but it has been done.
See my negotiation slides. I have added some new ones in
the middle, which show how translation can be automated or
semiautomated.
But if you believe that getting agreement up front is
easier, I suggest that you volunteer to be the mediator
in the Middle East.
AP> People are free to disagree but it amazes me that folks
> (not you) keep participating in this group as spoilers,
> even when they disagree with the fundamental purpose of
> the effort.
I hope you aren't referring to me as a spoiler because I
disagree with you. I have been trying to educate the group
on how to do something practical and achievable. The idea
of proposing a one-size-fits-all ontology was Cyc's original
goal, which they have modified to accommodate microtheories.
And after 500-person years of effort, they still haven't
achieved nirvana.
John Sowa