Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John and others,
The SUO development stages below look good to me.
> And the same is true of IFF. As Robert has
> said, the theory is quite complete right now.
I am not sure that I said exactly that. In fact, I do not think the IFF will
ever be complete or finished, since it is open to new ideas about
meta-ontology and metalogic. What is true though, is that the IFF has posted
version 1 of the IFF Ontology (meta) Ontology (IFF-OOv1), the (meta)
ontology that represents object-level ontologies. This is probably "complete
enough" for the development stages below, especially if we are talking about
unpopulated ontologies (ontologies without instance data) -- it represents
these as IFF theories (an IFF theory is an IFF type language plus a set of
axioms in that language. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that both
SUMO and OPENCYC are unpopulated ontologies.
IFF-OOv1 has a baseline axiomatization for the "lattice of theories" in its
two truth namespaces -- the truth namespace that is a sub-namespace of the
IFF type language namespace is basic. The truth namespace that is a
sub-namespace of the IFF theory namespace is an extension that fits better
with colimits of theories. This extended truth namespace might better
represent the "common set of assumptions" shared by Cyc micotheories.
IFF-OOv2, which is due out this fall, is geared towards a better
representation of populated ontologies (ontologies with instance data).
These are represented as IFF logics (an IFF logic is an IFF theory and an
IFF model-theoretic structure that shared a common IFF type language).
The simple notion of a "generalization hierarchy" as a part of a "lattice of
theories" actually has a formal representation in the IFF Upper
Classification (meta) Ontology (IFF-UCLS), where it is known as a collective
truth concept. See the subsection on "Collective Concepts" starting on page
41 of the PDF document at address
http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/metalevel/upper/ontology/classification/version20020
102.pdf. A more comprehensive and enriched notion of a "context for
ontologies" is provided by the IFF category of theories, where one can *sum*
collections of ontologies as "disjoint unions" of languages and axioms, and
one can *fuse* collections of ontologies by coherently identifying common
entity types (sorts), relation types (predicates) and expressions
(formulas). Finally, there are axiomatizations in the IFF for
interpretations, which move between languages or theories by mapping
relations in one language to expressions in another. Such interpretations
can be lifted to the level of "morphisms between lattices of theories".
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org.
> Stage one. Three independent projects: SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and IFF.
>
> Stage two. Stock taking, analysis, and testing:
>
> a) Study the commonalities and overlaps
> between SUMO and OpenCyc and the
> possible contribution of further
> content from other sources.
>
> b) Analysis of possible inconsistencies
> in the various modules that make up
> SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
>
> c) Development and testing of the IFF
> theory and methodology on the modules
> of SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
> Further refinement and clarification
> of IFF and how it can assist in the
> analysis, testing, and combination
> of modules from various sources,
> especially SUMO and IFF.
>
> Stage three. Results:
>
> a) A library of modules derived from SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and/or other sources;
>
> b) Organization of the library into a
> generalization hierarchy (lattice),
> certification of the consistency of each
> individual module, statements of known
> inconsistencies between modules, and
> a history of testing of each module.
>
> c) A methodology based on IFF and/or other
> theoretical and computational techniques
> that enables different modules to be
> ordered within the generalization hierarchy,
> combined with one another, tested for
> consistency of each possible combination,
> and accommodated to new modules derived
> from independently developed sources.
>
> This proposal allows changes in any or all of the
> three starting projects. It doesn't commit to
> a total adoption of everything from any one of them,
> and it assumes that each contribution from any one
> will have to survive the analysis and testing done
> in stage 2. It also allows contributions from other
> sources (including further work done by the same
> people who initiated the first three projects).