Re: SUO: X-Mailer
John,
At 07:29 PM 3/19/2002 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>You keep missing the point. There are infinitely many
>upper-, lower-, and middle-level ontologies. And no single
>one can ever be best or even adequate for all purposes.
I don't believe I've missed your point. We just disagree. You've asserted
your point but haven't proven it. You're welcome to your opinion. But
participating in an effort to create a standard ontology only to say that
the objective is wrong is counterproductive.
>CM> 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.
>
>AP> 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.
>
>This statement clearly contradicts Chris Menzel's notion of
>the "prevailing view".
>
>Proposing a single ontology as if it were somehow "good enough"
>is like writing an English dictionary in which there is exactly
>one definition for every word. It would create a hopelessly
>misleading view of the English language. For someone who was
>just beginning to learn English, such a dictionary would be
>worse than no dictionary at all.
>
>AP> 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.
>
>That analogy does not hold. For large numbers of problems,
>there are many equally good standards, such as driving on
>the right in the US and on the left in the UK. It doesn't
>matter which one you pick, as long as everybody agrees to one.
>
>But ontology is nothing like that at all. The reason why
>natural languages are so flexible is that they can accommodate
>an infinite variety of different definitions for concepts.
>And it is *essential* to preserve that flexibility and
>adaptability in any solution that is adopted for an IEEE
>standard.
>
>That means that we must recognize both (a) and (b) in Chris's
>statement as facts of how people conceptualize the world. It is
>not an issue where there are multiple choices that are equally
>good. It is an issue where there are multiple choices that
>must *all* be supported. Any attempt to put one choice ahead
>of any other would be a disaster.
>
>AP> ... 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.
>
>IFF is a step in the right direction. People have complained
>that it is too big and too impenetrable to be understandable.
>I agree with that complaint, and I would suggest that the IFF
>people should separate their presentation of the abstract theory
>from the actual APIs that are being standardized. That would
>result in a much, much thinner document that could be presented
>in a much more intelligible way.
>
>AP> 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.
>
>I would be happy to contribute axioms (and entire theories) to
>a system that consisted of the SUMO modules, the OpenCyc modules,
>and others poured into a framework like IFF. But until the
>framework is put in place, I have no desire to waste my time
>contributing to SUMO by itself.
>
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571