SUO: Re: Unanswered Questions About SUMO Set Theory
Todd, Adam, Bill, et al.,
As this discussion indicates, there are many points of view
about the goals of the SUO and even about the interpretation
of the statements of the goals embodied in the charter.
Several of the founding members have a narrow set of goals,
which Adam has interpreted as implying a single, monolithic
ontology:
> There are different opinions on this list. When we wrote the PAR
> for this group the intent was to have a standards effort aimed at
> ontology content - creating a set of terms and formal definitions.
I agree that content was and still is a central focus of the SUO
project. However, there is a very serious question about the form
in which that content is presented and made available. Another
very serious issue is the recognition of multiple, often conflicting
selections of content, which are required for various purposes.
> A large number of people who have joined this group are interested
> in a different direction however.
I am probably one of the people whom Adam includes in the "different"
direction department, even though I agree with Adam that content is
essential. The fundamental difference is that I would add the
following qualifications:
1. No one today (and perhaps no one ever) is smart enough to select
the best or even a good set of theories that would qualify as
an obviously great set of axioms and definitions that should
be given a privileged status over any and all others by being
certified as an IEEE standard.
2. On the contrary, the history of science and technology shows
that all theories are at best adequate approximations for some
particular purpose that has been felt at some particular point
in time. Even the best of them are hopelessly inadequate for
other purposes at other times.
3. Therefore, the SUO should adopt a framework that can accommodate
all possible theories, show precisely how they are related to one
another (as generalizations, specializations, or alternatives),
state clearly what purpose(s) each one is intended to satisfy,
and include a history of endorsements, certifications, and
cautionary notes that various users have experienced.
SUMO is one collection of theories that many people believe are
valuable and some people would claim as sufficient for a wide
range of applications. OpenCyc is another collection of theories
with similar claims. I believe that both of them are valuable,
but I would not want either one to be privileged over the other
or over many other equally worthy theories.
My recommendation is to accept the theories (or microtheories) of
SUMO and OpenCyc as content modules within a framework that could
also accommodate other contributions as well.
The IFF working group is developing such a framework, and I would
be happy to support a collaboration of the SUMO and OpenCyc
proponents to cast their collections within the IFF framework
(perhaps with further developments and modifications of IFF
that might be needed to accommodate them).
But I would never support either SUMO or OpenCyc by themselves
as IEEE standards. I also have some reservations about CycL
as a proposed standard. I would endorse CycL if and only if
it were included in the CL (Common Logic) framework that also
supports KIF, CGs, and the infix notation for predicate calculus.
John Sowa