Re: SUO: X-Mailer
Adam,
I would be delighted if my characterization of your position
happened to be wrong. As I said in my earlier note, I support
Chris Menzel's position:
> 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.
If this is indeed your position, then let's get that agreement
down in writing. I have been insisting on something very
similar, and you have claimed that I am a "spoiler" because
I am arguing for something that is not in the SUO charter.
AP> 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.
As I have said many times, I believe that proposing axioms
before doing the fundamental design is a waste of time. That
is like saying that a bad program design can be corrected by
adding more lines of code.
AP> Further, partly in response to your prompting, we've divided
> SUMO into modules so it cannot accurately be termed monolithic.
That is indeed a step in the right direction, but the important
follow-on is to allow mutliple competing axiomatizations for the
same "concepts" -- e.g., a 3-D vs. a 4-D representation of time
and space. Pat Hayes gave many other examples, and there are
numerous examples in the literature. I've pointed to some of
them, and I'll continue to point to others when I have the time.
AP> 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.
Unfortunately, Teknowledge is the only company involved with
the SUO that has enough funding to have people working full
time on developing axioms. For me, SUO is a part-time effort,
and I am working on much more promising endeavors than fighting
an uphill battle to make improvements to SUMO.
John