SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
Dear Adam,
I could of course have titled this note "Why is IFF and the Lattice of
Theories good for EPISTLE" since we are in a similar position, having
a single coherent ontology, though focussed on a different paradigm
and problem set than SUMO as far as I can see.
There are two pragmatic reasons why I support this approach:
1. Version Management
In the great scheme of things all our present day ontologies are
immature, which means that they will change and improve over time.
Even if they were mature, knowledge is expanding at an alarming rate.
This means that we can expect our ontologies to change. The problem
with this is managing the change in the ontologies so that you can
track what version you used for some problem, and how the current
version is different from this.
The lattice of theories provides facilities for this. You can identify
what theories were parts of what versions of the ontology.
2. Using multiple ontologies/paradigms
My personal view is that the "holy wars" about different sorts of
ontology (e.g. 3D/4D) are largely misplaced. I expect that it will
turn out that different ontologies/paradigms will have different
strengths/weaknesses and that we will want to translate between
these for more complex problems.
IFF and the Lattice of Theories supports this. The support here is
weaker, because in many cases you would need to do the mapping
between at least core constructs of equivalent theories, but an
environment that supports this is still valuable.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com