RE: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Dear Robert,
See comments below.
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: 04 May 2003 18:29
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
>
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Ha! No, I am a theory guy.
MW: Me too :-( but at a different level of the stack.
> 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,
MW: The challenge here is:
1. Do you standardise before you implement? (What if you get it
wrong)
2. Do you implement before you standardise? (How do you know
what needs to be standardised)
A draft standard followed by trial implementation before
finalising the standard is what I am used to as an approach.
> 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.
MW: I would be happy to contribute here in some (smallish) way.
> 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).
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>