Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
At 07:45 AM 6/4/2003 +0200, Jean-Luc Delatre wrote:
Mike Pool a écrit :
[large snip...]
> Why does the SUO group have to also do ontology mapping work?
> If one groups wants to map their ontology to the standard, perhaps
using IFF,
>rather than embracing it wholesale, fine and dandy, but why should we
do that work for them?
Because, given that there is not and never will be any such thing as the
ONE and ONLY top ontology,
THIS ontologies cross mapping IS the only sensible deed close enough to
the purported "SUO scope and
purpose".
Jean Luc, I believe that an upper ontology should be modular and
extensible. However, in the use cases we've seen to date, i.e., the
SUMO and the OpenCyc effort, I don't think that there is a lot to be
gained from spending a lot of time merging the two rather than focusing
on improving one or the other, or both. Even, if the case can
be made that there will never be one and only one top level ontology,
which seems odd to me if we make the ontology sufficiently modular and
extensible, it's hard to make a case that both the standards we've
considered to date really need to co-exist as a pair of standard upper
ontologies or that some extensive merging effort has some utility. But
perhaps you could convince me.
In any event, this is what is leaving me confused about motion 2.
You appear to advocate it because it will allow for many upper ontologies
to co-exist in peaceful harmony. John Sowa, on the other hand,
claims that it is only a politically expedient stopgap measure along the
road to developing a real standard, not a tool to be used to keep any
number of ontologies co-existing. This vagueness is all the more
reason to be leery of the motion.
I know, I know, I am talking to the
wall.
Since your phrasing "if one groups wants to map their ontology to
the standard ... wholesale"
reveals that you still believe that any "foreign" ontology can
be viewed as a subset/superset of the
"good standard" whatever it might be.
Jean Luc, you sweet old charmer you, I won't be taken in by your
flattery. I do not believe what you ascribe to me above and I'm not
sure why you think that it follows from my assertion. Indeed,
in cases where two ontologies aren't in a superset/subset relation and in
cases *in which we need representational approaches of both* we'd need,
at the very least, to add modules to one of them. It doesn't
follow from this that it is useful to take two extant ontologies with a
great deal of conceptual overlap and create a merger of the two or keep
them both around when trying to come up with a SUO.
best regards,
Mike Pool
Naivety at best...
Cheers.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every complex problem there is an
answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Naivete in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with
vanity it is indistinguishable from stupidity.
-Eric
Hoffer