Re: SUO: X-Mailer
John,
At 05:36 PM 3/19/2002 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>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.
I've said this before, but I do believe that there are many possible upper
level ontologies. We're trying to create one that is good enough. I
disagree with (a) and agree with (b). The fact that there may be many
possible upper ontologies is not an argument against agreeing on
one. Standards exist in fields whether there are many possible solutions,
but the value of interoperability, common tools, etc leads people to adopt
a common standard.
>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.
True but it's unclear what the "fundamental design" would consist
of. We've had several years on this project with most people just talking
and not proposing any standards words. That sort of effort doesn't lead us
to a standard.
>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.
I would welcome those axiomatizations. Until they're proposed, as a
concrete set of axioms, it is an open question about whether there presence
would offer any advantages on concrete tasks.
>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.
The battle need not be uphill, nor need it require any full time
commitment. If everyone on the list expended effort in writing axioms
either expanding SUMO or in proposing a concrete set of axioms embodying an
alternate theory, we'd make tremendous progress. If you would take the
time to do that instead of writing messages that are just references,
discussion or opinion, you'd have time for a substantial contribution.
Adam
>John
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571