Re: SUO: X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.7f, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
John,
I believe that you are misrepresenting my position. I have not refused
to allow different positions into SUMO. If you would like to propose a set
of axioms that you feel are a "different position" that deserves to be in
SUMO, please do so. You have not previously done so.
Further, partly in response to your prompting, we've divided SUMO into
modules so it cannot accurately be termed monolithic.
What I do insist on is that if you or anyone else would like a lattice
of theories that you propose axioms for those theories. To date, you've
merely conjectured that such a structure would be beneficial. IFF provides
the theoretical structure for a lattice, but again does not provide the
theories themselves.
Adam
At 03:44 PM 3/19/2002 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Chris and Jean-Luc,
>
>I can interpret what Jean-Luc said in a way that I largely agree with,
>and I can also interpret what Chris M. said in a way that I agree with.
>
>I believe that what Jean-Luc has been criticizing is not so much SUO
>as what some people (especially the SUMO group) have interpreted as the
>SUO position. And I believe that what Chris is defending is a vision
>of the SUO position that is quite different from the SUMO position,
>and Chris's view is closer to a position that I have been
>proposing and the IFF group is working on.
>
>Jean-Luc Delatre wrote:
>
> > Some of the "assumptions" that, to me, seem questionable and shared
> > by most people involved in ontology projects (alas, not only SUO!) are:
> >
> > 1) There exist ultimately a *perfect* all encompassing ontology that allows
>
> > describing everything, and we have to chase for it however distant it be.
>
>
>Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> > I certainly agree that that would be a dubious assumption, but it
> > seems to me that the prevailing view among participants on this
> > project is that (a) there is no all-encompassing ontology, maximally
> > expressive ontology and that (b) there there could be multiple
> > ontologies -- even "upper level" ontologies -- that reflect different
> > ways of conceptualizing the world.
>
>I am happy with this statement, and I wish it were part of the official
>SUO charter. The charter is ambiguous on this point, and I would like
>to see something along the lines of this statement in the charter.
>
>CM> Exactly what evidence do you have that anyone involved in this
> > project actually accepts the above assumption?
>
>The major evidence is Adam Pease, who has been defending a monolithic
>ontology despite all the evidence that a single monolithic approach is
>doomed to failure. In some notes, Adam has acknowledged that there
>might be different points of view, but he steadfastly refuses to allow
>any of them into SUMO.
>
>JLD> 2) There *must* be for each concept a *true* denomination ...
>
>CM> Now that is completely bizarre. There are a number of legitimate
> > concerns about the SUO project that can be, and indeed have been,
> > raised, but that is surely not one of them. No one involved in this
> > project (or any ontology project that I know of) thinks that the names
> > of classes, properties, relations, etc are anything but conventional.
> > Any push for one name rather than another is motivated only by
> > pragmatic concerns, such as the avoidance of names with natural
> > language connotations that might hinder a user's understanding of the
> > ontology.
>
>I certainly agree that such a position would be "completely bizarre".
>Unfortunately, Adam P. has come very close to promoting such a position
>for SUMO. In fact, I was never exactly clear what position Adam has
>been promoting, and I would like to see a clarification. But I believe
>that Jean-Luc's reaction to what Adam has been saying is much less
>bizarre than Adam's arguments for a monolithic ontology.
>
>JLD> and everybody have to agree to use it.
>
>CM> Well, what would you suggest to people who want to use the concepts
> > in a given ontology? That they choose their own terms for those
> > concepts and then write programs that translate the axioms of the
> > ontology into identical axioms that simply use their own lingo? How
> > stupid would that be?
>
>I suggest that you look at what Adam has been proposing: a single
>monolithic standard, named SUMO, which he hopes that the IEEE will
>endorse. I have been asking for a lattice of theories, which could
>accommodate many subtheories adopted from SUMO, other subtheories
>adopted from OpenCyc, others from IMPS, and any or all resources that
>anyone would care to contribute to the IEEE. But Adam has fought
>against that proposal as hard as he can.
>
>CM> If you've got credible objections to the SUO that you can document,
> > I'm sure the SUO participants will be happy to debate them. These
> > objections are not remotely credible.
>
>I believe that they are very credible as objections to SUMO. And some
>people, Adam P. especially, have claimed that SUMO conforms to the SUO
>charter, but other proposals such as IFF and my lattice of theories
>do not.
>
>John
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571