SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Jean-Luc, Adam, and Robert,
The announcement that Google bought Applied
Semantics means that a 600-pound gorilla has
jumped into our little ontology wading pool:
JLD> Too bad for you guys...
>
> Big money is going to tell you what a
> "Standard Upper Ontology" is:
http://www.appliedsemantics.com/ne/ne_pr_042303.html
http://www.appliedsemantics.com/company/company_technology.html
http://www.appliedsemantics.com/ne/ne_news_070102.html
> No less monolithic, orwellian and conservative
> than you could ever dream of! We all can rest now
> and just buy it.
Some observations:
1. The white papers on the Applied Semantics web site
make it clear that they are not doing reasoning,
expert systems, or anything remotely resembling
what Cyc is doing.
2. What they call an ontology is what I called a
"terminological ontology" in the glossary on my
web site:
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm
<http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/gloss.htm>
Therminological ontologies are important starting
points for more detailed axiomatizations. But they
are not doing what the SUO is attempting to do.
3. Nevertheless, you can't ignore a big gorilla in
your wading pool. Even if its intentions are benign,
it can crush you in a playful embrace. So you must
pay attention and make sure that you treat it with
all due respect.
This brings us to something that Adam Pease mentioned
in an earlier note about IFF and its relevance to SUO:
AP> Our charter doesn't address ontology mapping or
> translation. IFF seems like a product that might help
> one compose ontologies in order to create a proposed
> standard for the SUO, but that it is not a relevant
> proposal itself.
>
> In terms of John's proposal for a combined effort,
> I could similarly see IFF being used in combining SUMO,
> Cyc, or other ontologies, but the resulting artifact
> would be the proposal to SUO, not the original
> ontologies or IFF.
The important point is that no ontology can ever be
a static, stand-alone artifact. The terminologies
used by Applied Sciences are overwhelmingly larger
than Cyc in terms of the number of concept types
(or word senses). Somehow, the SUO will have to
be related to such things, and the methods for
composing or relating ontologies must be part of
any practical methodology for using ontologies.
Whether or not the methodologies for using,
relating, or composing ontologies are in the SUO
charter or are implied by clauses that are in the
charter is not clear. But if we don't address
those issues, we are going to be crushed by
the gorilla.
AP> An additional concern that I have is that
> the utility, as opposed to the mathematical
> possibility, of employing IFF to that end is
> also unsupported by any examples or practical
> experience, at least so far as messages to this
> mailing list are concerned. There are many folks
> working on ontology mapping. What evidence is
> there that a category theory approach allows one
> to merge ontologies faster, or more easily than
> other approaches, including that of emacs and
> a human ontologist with no other tools?
My brief justification: IFF is a structured
framework for using logic to do theory revision,
editing, merging, and comparison while ensuring
that the results are consistent.
The methods for "aligning" ontologies, which Ed Hovy
and others have discussed, have only addressed the
problem of relating the terminology. They have not
gone to the deeper level of checking whether the
associated axioms are consistent. That is the most
critical part of the problem, and it cannot be
solved without some serious logic-based tools.
Note that I have not used the phrase "category
theory". Robert K. cited the work on Specware by
the Kestrel Institute, which also uses category
theory. However, if you look at the Kestrel site,
they don't mention category theory at all.
Suggestion: Robert (or other people on the IFF
project) must justify IFF based on its results,
not on the theories it may use to produce those
results. I happen to agree that category theory
is the right framework to use, but they have to
learn how to preach to the entire congregation,
not just to the choir.
John