Re: SUO: Monolithic vs. Modular, SUMO and IFF [Was: X-Mailer]
Leo,
That is a very reasonable position to take:
Leo Oberst wrote:
> 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.
I certainly agree, and I would add that IFF (or something along similar
lines) is a very important addition to SUMO that is necessary in order
to prevent it from being too one-sided and inflexible. I also agree
that SUMO is worthy of our consideration as part of an IEEE standard --
along with other contributions that would fit equally well into the IFF
framework.
> 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.
I agree that having SUMO is better than not having it. Even better
would be a collection of ontological resources, including OpenCyc,
IMPS, and many other resources. Having such a collection is necessary
in order to cover the various ways of conceptualizing reality that
are necessary for different kinds of applications. And having something
like IFF is essential to relate all these resources and make it easier
to determine which is best for any given application.
> 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.
I definitely agree. My only concern is that some of the SUMO proponents
are opposed to the idea of fitting SUMO into the IFF framework along
with other ontological resources.
Bottom line: I would vote in favor of SUMO if it were combined with
IFF in a framework that also included OpenCyc. But I would vote against
SUMO as a stand-alone IEEE standard.
John Sowa