Re: SUO: Program Semantics

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Bill,

There is nothing more relevant to the goals of the SUO than
the problems of knowledge soup.  The reason why our current
systems are in such an incredible muddle is that many people
have been ignoring those problems for years in the hope that
they will go away by magic.  And other people have been
proposing the same failed techniques again and again in the
hope that they will somehow be the magic.  As an example of
the failed techniques, I cite SUMO as the prime example.
The major goal of the SUO charter (as you quoted it below)
is to find a proper structure for doing ontology.  That has
to be done before any categories or axioms can be written.

JS>   1. The problems of knowledge soup (Ch. 6 of my 2000 book or Ch. 7
>>>      of my 1984 book) are fundamental to the way people think, and
>>>      they must be accommodated by any cognitive agent or reasoning
>>>      system that has any hope of attaining the flexibility of human
>>>      reasoning (or even a rough approximation to it).

BA>This is NOT a general discussion on AI, human cognition, or NLP - all of

>which are enthralling and worthy subjects, about which I care a great deal.

>But If the term "Ontology" becomes conflated with those terms, then all is

>lost.  There will be no progress.

I agree that we should focus on the real problems of ontology.
That is what I have been trying to do.

BA>As a reminder of what we ought to be doing, here is the description of the

>standard activity from http://suo.ieee.org/:

>Description of Target Standard:  This standard will specify an upper
>ontology that will enable computers to utilize it for applications such as

>data interoperability, information search and retrieval, automated
>inferencing, and natural language processing. An ontology is similar to a
>dictionary or glossary, but with greater detail and structure that enables

>computers to process its content. An ontology consists of a set of concepts>,

>axioms, and relationships that describe a domain of interest. An upper
>ontology is limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and
>philosophical, and therefore are general enough to address (at a high level>)

>a broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific to given domains will not

>be included; however, this standard will provide a structure and a set of
>general concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial,
>engineering, etc.) could be constructed.

Thanks for the reminder.  I draw your attention to the last
sentence, which says that the "standard will provide a
structure."  I have said since day one of this group that
a proper structure is far, far more important than any
particular category or axiom.  And the only people who have
paid any attention to that point are the IFF gang.

The people who keep harping about writing axioms are like
the program managers who count progress by lines of code.
They don't care what the code does as long as there is a
lot of it.  And if it doesn't do what they want, they just
demand more lines of code.

>Now, isn't there enough here to debate over without talking about NLP, or
>Montague, or Wittgenstein's or Peirce's views on human language competence

>and/or performance????

The primary problem about NLP is exactly the primary problem
of ontology:  no single fixed monolithic ontology can support
the kind of flexibility that human beings use in every sentence
they speak.  Addressing that question is the number one issue
in developing an appropriate "structure" for doing ontology.

>C'mon folks.  Try to stay focused.  Many people have fled from this group
>because of its lack of focus and tolerance of crackpot rantings.  Haven't
>you all noted the conspicuous absence of many bright people who at one time

>contributed regularly?  I'm going to join that group very soon.

There are indeed lots of very good people who have left the
list -- primarily because they are totally disgusted with
the proposal to force a monolithic Orwellian ontology down
everybody's throat.

I'm doing my best to lead the monolith to redemption.  (A good
topic for Good Friday.)

John