Re: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
John and Adam,
I think I can speak for the IFF group, that we strongly support John's joint
motion (below).
> Please note that the joint motion does not
> "advocate" IFF as a solution. What it advocates
> is a bare minimum, which is already supported
> by ontology projects, including some of those
> that you cited.
[ISI's Ontomorph of Hans Chalupsky
http://www.isi.edu/~hans/ontomorph/presentation/ontomorph.html
or the work of Gio Wiederhold and his students]
The IFF group especially appreciates the name "ontomorph", which we assume
breaks down into "ontology" and "morphism", a morphism between ontologies.
We [the IFF group] do morphisms. We also especially advocate the opinion on
page 4 of the above OntoMorph document that "we better learn to live in a
world where everybody represents things differently". Thanks Adam for the
pointer.
Syntax-directed trnaslations are supported by the IFF type language
interpretations that are axiomatized on pages 51-56 of the current version
of the IFF type language namespace document located at
suo.ieee.org/IFF/metalevel/lower/namespace/type-language/version20021205.pdf
These are a typed (sorted) version of the notion of a first order logic
interpretation defined on pages 74-75 of the book "Information Flow" by
Barwise and Seligman.
Every IFF interpretation
I : L1 => L2,
which maps L1-entity types (sorts) to L2-entity types (sorts) and maps
L1-relation types (predicates) to L2-expressions (formulas),
defines a fiber model map
mod(I) : mod(L2) --> mod(L1)
in the reverse direction. The latter map is the instance component of the
truth infomorphism
truth-info(L) : truth-class(L1) <=> truth-class(L2),
which in turn defines a truth concept morphism
truth-conc-morph(I) : latt-of-theo(L1) <=> latt-of-theo(L2).
This process may be a very common approach for defining semantic morphisms
between lattices of theories.
> Furthermore, it advocates that
> the IFF people work with both SUMO and OpenCyc
> to demonstrate what it can do.
We stand ready to collaborate with both the SUMO and OpenCyc groups.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org
________________________________________________________
> Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group commence work on a project to develop
> a standard based on three starting candidates,
> IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
>
> (1) The development process shall include a
> collaboration of members of all three groups
> and other SUO participants to determine how each
> of the three starting candidates can complement
> and support the contributions of the others.
>
> (2) The results shall include a library of modules
> derived from OpenCyc, SUMO, and/or other sources.
> Each module shall consist of closely related
> axioms and definitions for some aspect of a
> standard upper ontology.
>
> (3) The standard shall include the specification
> of a methodology for testing the modules for
> consistency, relating them to one another in
> a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> and combining two or more modules to derive a
> new module that is larger and more specialized
> than the modules from which it was derived.