Re: SUO: Monolithic vs. Modular, SUMO and IFF [Was: X-Mailer]
Maybe I am restating the obvious, but to me SUMO and IFF really don't
conflict. I think Bob Kent and Jim Farrugia will agree with that
statement. SUMO is an upper ontology (candidate for SUO) and IFF is a
meta ontology (candidate for SUO), but IFF is a way of structuring,
organizing, and integrating object-level ontologies, and SUMO is one
object-level ontology. They address different levels, and are both
worthy of our consideration.
Now, we might all prefer a modular object-level upper ontology (i.e., a
lattice of ontologies), and I certainly do, but I still think SUMO is a
legitimate offering. In fact, I take the pragmatic view that ANY
reasoned and reasonable upper ontology is MUCH better than our current
situation in information technology, i.e., there is NO such beast, but
instead, ten million unreasoned and unreasonable mini upper ontologies
inextricably embedded in the software and databases of the world.
So I support SUMO, even though it is monolithic. Will it remain
monolithic? Probably not. Should it eventually be combined with other
theories in a framework which can integrate ontologies, as IFF intends
to be? Probably. I applaud both the SUMO effort and Bob Kent's IFF
effort: both are taking us far towards achieving the SUO's goals, and
represent good, solid (meaning tangible!) work.
Leo
"Robert E. Kent" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
> To: <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: SUO: X-Mailer
>
> > 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 he 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.
>
> Agreed. But after the next step, which is submission of the (first version
> of the) IFF Model Theory Ontology (within the next month). When complete,
> the latter should allow us to discuss and represent in IFF terminology any
> object-level ontology presented in any many-sorted first order logical
> language.
>
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA