Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Hi Matthew,
Ha! No, I am a theory guy. I have been providing the theory and the
axiomatization. When I said that it was "probably 'complete enough' for the
development stages below", I was talking about the theory. Next comes (1)
standards wording and (2) implementation, which I am leaving up to (although
I will work with) the standards guys in the IFF technical committee and the
SUO WG at large. Within the SUO development stages below I would say that
the IFF is coming to the end of stage 1. Stage 1 for the IFF has consisted
largely of creating the theory and generating the axiomatization. Standards
wording and implementation possibly takes place in stages 2 and 3.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 8:16 AM
Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Dear Robert,
Does that mean that it is possible now to create content using IFF?
Let me know when this is the case (preferably with a user manual) and
I will try it out on a little EPISTLE stuff.
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert E. Kent [mailto:rekent@ontologos.org]
> Sent: 03 May 2003 20:07
> To: John F. Sowa
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: 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/classificatio
> n/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).
>
>
>
>