SUO: RE: SUO -- Technical Methodology
Dear Pat,
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: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: 15 June 2003 22:29
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: SUO -- Technical Methodology
>
>
>
> Matthew West has suggested that we proceed by a different
> method to build the IEEE standard ontology. I think this
> is a different thread from the original:
> RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
>
> . . . and I will reply with a different subject line, to
> those parts of Matthew's note dealing with the methodology.
> I have responded to specifics about the EVENT/PROCESS
> question within the original thread.
>
>
> West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > I think you have started on the wrong foot. We need to start from a
> > basis of comparative ontology, as Nicola has been
> suggesting - and me
> > by reference to his (and others) approach. A book I can recommend
> > that covers much of the ground is:
> >
> > Sider, Theodore. Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and
> > Time. OUP 2001.
> >
> ---------------
> [PC] the hardback is available at 35 pounds:
> http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-924443-X
> But the paperback ($19.00) is listed at Amazon.com as not yet
> published.
MW: I have the paperback version which I pre-ordered a couple of months
ago. So it is available - at least in the UK.
> John Sowa has provided a reference in his note to
> Sider's home page publication list:
> http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/~sider/cv.html
>
> . . . where in particular his 47-page article "four-Dimensionalism"
> may provide us an overview of his approach.
> http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/~sider/papers/4d.pdf
>
> Meanwhile, could you provide us with a summary of the points that
> you think would help guide us here, while we are waiting to
> get our copies of the book and digest his articles?
MW: Some key differences in foundations that Sider points out are:
Eternalism vs Presentism
Eternalism says that the past and the future exist (which makes
referring to them easier)
Presentism says only the present exists.
Temporal parts vs occurents
Temporal parts (depends on eternalism) say that physical objects have
temporal parts taht can be referred to and can have properties and
relations.
Occurrents says that things have no temporal parts, but sweep through
time.
Dualism
There are both occurents and continuants, where continuants (usually
events/activities/processes do extend in space time, but physical
objects don't (Barry Smith and Nicola Guarino seem to be of this
persuasion). Here however, you get the disadvantage that for each
occurent there is also its life-history - the process of its existence.
I think that Nicola also points to some other distinctions.
In any case, the point is that the foundations you choose at this level
will determine how you see event/process/activity. Of course if you do
not make an explicit choice at this level, the result is likely to be
that you will make different choices in different places, and this will
most probably arise in inconsistencies which be difficult to identify.
> ------------------
>
> > Whilst he is admitedly doing comparative ontology with the aim of
> > convincing the reader that Four Dimensionalism is the best
> foundation
> > for ontology (and I'm not about to disagree with him) he does set
> > about looking at the different foundational choices you can make and
> > what the consequences of those choices are.
> >
> =====================
> [PC] If you think such a discussion will add to what has already
> occurred within this group for the past 3 years, and will not
> continue for another 3 years before reaching the phase of actually
> creating at least one class in a new standard ontology, then I will
> be happy to participate in such a methodological discussion.
MW: Well read the book, if everyone is convinced by his arguments
and the choices he has made (which we independently made in EPISTLE) of
eternalism with temporal parts, i.e. four dimensionalism, then it does
simplify things. However, we are not going to change our choice whatever
anyone votes here, so if there are substantial groups that want to make
different choices, then we need to find some way to work together that
is more constructive than throwing rocks.
> Such a discussion can be concurrent with an attempt to explore
> specific issues such as the logical structure of the "Event" class.
MW: There are certainly some things that can be talked about independently
of these choices - but with a tranlsation into your one favoured
foundation being implicit.
> I have attempted to begin the process of actual construction of
> a merged ontology as I interpret John Sowa's motion as recommending,
> because my evaluation of the progress of the past seven years of
> discussion of standard ontologies has led me to believe that only
> concrete discussion of specific issues as related to specific classes
> and relations will lead to results. I will be delighted if some
> other method proves more effective; I recognize its difficulty, but
> in light of the past history of the IEEE discussion group, I think
> it is a process that may succeed by focusing on very specific
> issues and avoiding the powerful centrifugal urges to branch
> off into related but peripheral questions.
MW: This is OK with me provided a literature review is incorporated into
the discussions, so that we do not reinvent wheels and just "do something
right here right now" in a vacuum.
> ---------------------------
>
>
> > This does not mean simply picking one view by voting as being true
> > (voting has always been a poor way to correctly determine
> anything except
> > what is popular).
> -----------------------
> [PC] I am guilty here. I confess that I believe that one of the
> goals for "standard" ontology is that it should be popular -- it goes
> without saying that it should also be technically adequate for the
> purposes it will be used for. I don't think that "being true" is
> the best phrase to express technical adequacy -- there are
> probably several criteria: logical consistency, computational
> efficiency, accuracy of predictions, etc. I also think that
> perspicuity would be really helpful in a standard. All of these
> can be hashed out before a vote if a vote proves necessary.
MW: None of these are necessarily mutually exclusive. Computational
efficiency and accuracy are probably the hardest to reconcile.
MW: Deliverables need a vote, disagreements should give rise to issues
that need to be resolved as the preferred method for making progress.
> --------------------------
>
>
> [MW] > It means looking at the different basis that different
> > approaches have. You might reasonably look for
> inconsistencies in individual
> > approaches, or severe limitiations that mean that it does
> not correspond
> > to the world very well, or identify that two approaches
> were the same
> > under superficial differences. However, we should not just
> simply dismiss
> > some elements. This is just sweeping issues under the
> carpet - but they
> > are still there and will return later.
> >
>
> [PC] I agree that these things should be done. The Event/Process
> thread is intended to do that, but one class and relation at a time
> (at least at the beginning -- it would have to go faster at some
> point.) I can't think of a way to do all of those things for whole
> ontologies at a clip, within an e-mail group such as this. I will
> be happy to hear of suggestions on how to do that, in light of what
> we have been through already in these discussions.
MW: My experience is that the core concepts are quite few in number,
and you are right, activity/process/event is one of them. But there
are a few others such as individual, physical object, universal,
relationship, classification, specialisation (i.e. set theory -
including physical properties), representation (signs and so forth)
functions, numbers, functional component, levels of organisation...
>
> [PC]>>
> >> This note will respond to several comments made regarding
> >>this thread. First, I would like to make clear what I think
> >>can be accomplished by this thread.
> >> 1. Now that John Sowa's proposal has been approved,
> >>and effort will proceed to develop some form of
> >>merged ontology, I am trying to discover some procedure
> >>that will enable us to make substantive progress in
> >>constructing such an ontology.
> >
> >
> > MW: I recommend starting with comparative ontology.
> >
>
> [PC] OK. Sounds good. Please frame the issues that you think
> need to be resolved first, and if possible suggest a time
> frame within which some decision should be reached.
MW: I have identified some of the key choices above. I reitereate
though that for each combination of choices at this level for
which there is a sufficient constituency, there should be a branch
in the SUO.
> I do not feel competent to lead that discussion thread,
> but will be happy to participate if I can understand
> the issues.
MW: I'm not sure leadership is required, but we do need to get
into a way of analysis that examines the assumptions we are making
and gets them out in the open where they can be challenged.
>
> >
> >>The issue of creating
> >>mappings to SUMO, CYC, and other ontologies is related,
> >>but not central to building a "merged" ontology, which
> >>will be able to stand on its own and might eventually
> >>come to be viewed by some as "the" standard with the
> >>largest community of users.
> >
> >
> > MW: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "merged" here, but
> > since you talk below about selecting and rejecting, I guess
> > you don't mean what I mean in terms of an integration of
> > the different valid views that can be held, so you are heading
> > rapidly for something that will have a forwever diminishing
> > level of support.
> >
> [PC] I do recommend inclusion of all the compatible elements
> from all ontologies, if most participants wish it.
MW: Compatibility suggests duplication, and so is not needed.
> Rejection
> will occur mostly where there are inconsistencies and a choice
> has to be made.
MW: Here I disagree. Inconsistencies are most likely to arise as
a result of choices at the foundation level. I believe we need to
support those foundations that have a significant following.
> Another cause of rejection of elements from
> one ontology could be if it is likely to cause unnecessary
> computational complexity. The "rejected" elements will still
> reside within the original ontologies, and may or may not permit
> some kind of mapping to them. The "rejected" elements may also
> form alternative "modules" if they affect a large enough
> group of concepts. This is a generality, and whether
> it is meaningful will depend on the specifics of what
> is included and rejected.
MW: Really dangerous stuff. It might be relevant to grade axioms
as to their computational type, but I would not reject them.
>
> >
> >>I don't think we need to
> >>wait for a formal organization of the effort before
> >>exploring processes by which we might proceed.
> >
> >
> > MW: We are here now, there is nothing to stop us making progress
> > if we can just take some steps - even exploratory ones - to see
> > the way forward.
> >
> [PC] Right. More than one exploratory method may be worth
> trying. I have suggested one, and would enthusiastically
> participate in others at the same time.
MW: Me too.
>
> [snip]
> >
> >> 3. If a different process for building such a merged
> >>ontology appears preferable to any of the participants,
> >>I hope they will make a suggestion for the alternative.
> >
> >
> > MW: I am doing so in this response. We need to look at the
> > alternative approaches and see what the underlying rather than
> > superficial differences are. These underlying differences are
> > then what we really need to understand. They will be some of
> > the foundational concepts (activity/event is actually already
> > quite a way down into the detail, but is a useful example).
> >
>
> Activity/Event is a little way down from the top, but
> my feeling is that it is a good place to start because it
> is concrete enough to allow our real-world-grounded intuitions
> to play a useful role, but abstract enough to help iron out
> some of the fundamental issues. There are lots of closely
> related issues, but I think that "Event" has the best chance
> of starting a good general discussion. A discussion on
> foundation concepts can be held at the same time.
MW: It is certainly not the worst place to start, and the middle-
out approach is in my experience often more productive than
top-down or bottom-up.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [PC]>> If this is the correct interpretation of the discussion
> >>thus far, it may be necessary to put this question to
> >>a vote.
> >
> >
>
> > MW: That would be a big mistake. If you need to vote, the only
> > thing you can be sure of is that we do not understand the problem.
> > If there is disagreement, the only sound approach is to assume that
> > both sides are right, and try to work out why. Sometimes you will
> > discover a different and important perspective. Voting just hides
> > an issue that will sometime need to be resolved.
> >
>
> [PC] Here we seem to have a different view. I assume that there
> will be multiple views that are "right" (for different purposes),
> but there will also be preferences that are logically inconsistent.
> The specific issue is whether a spatial location will be a necessary
> relation on an Event or an optional one. I think there are very
> good reasons for it being necessary. But if, after reasonable
> discussion someone still decides that s/he really *must* leave it
> optional, this forces a choice. A vote will be to decide which
> view has majority support. The alternative would still be available
> to users by means of some utility that can extract the alternate
> views from the full subsumption hierarchy/lattice. I think that
> discovering the majority view on certain issues is essential to
> allow a choice to be made, structures to be built (possibly
> multiple structures) and the discussion to proceed to
> another issue. My suggestion is that if there is a
> substantial majority wishing one alternative, and more than
> one person who must have a different alternative, an
> alternate "theory" can be created. If only one dissents,
> no alternative need be created by this group. The dissenter
> is still free to use the standard ontology and modify it
> to his/her own preferences for local use. The standard
> would still be useful for that person.
MW: Look at the discussion we have just had on this. What happened
in effect was that Rich raised an issue with location being "necessary".
This was discussed, and I think the result was that being ontologically
necessary didn't mean you had to know or care about it, which I think
resolved the issue. We did not do this formally, and we should try to
do that better. If we had, then we would know if we had succeeded if
Rich (at least) accepted that the issue was resolved.
MW: If you get into this way of working as making proposals, raising
issues, working to resolve them, agreeing the resolution, or maintaining
the issue as open then you get a very good sense of where you are.
MW: You may need to take a cut at some point, but you should put that off
as long as possible - often the resolution to issues come a considerable
tie after they were raised, and if you take a cut they will normally
re-emerge later.
> -----------------
>
>
> [PC]>> In contemplation of the need for voting at some point
> >>in this process, I would suggest that we form a Working Group
> >>of the IEEE-SUO group to specifically deal with the details
> >>of creating a merged ontology. Before proposing such a
> >>working group in a formal motion, I would like to know if
> >>others think it is the best way to proceed. (if almost all
> >>voting members wish to participate, a committee may be
> >>unnecessary).
> >
> >
> > MW: Voting is a big mistake. Only do it for political things.
> >
> [PC] If unanimity is not available, what alternative is there
> to voting? I see only paralysis. Please explain how progress
> can be made without a decision, if there is unresolvable
> disagreement. "Unresolvable" means that when we have 2000
> decisions to make, each one must be resolved within some
> short period of time -- 1 week at most. For initial
> decisions, a somewhat longer period may be required.
> This will require that some decisions be taken on multiple
> issues in one vote or consensus, and several issues can be
> discussed concurrently.
MW: If you manage issues properly you will not need to vote
often.
>
> ---------------------
> [PC]>>R.2.
> >>Chris Partridge has written [in part]
> >>[snip]
> >> > This raises for me the question about the motivation for
> >> > the necessity of the different types of relations. Wouldn't
> >> > you agree that any attempt to synthesise these candidate
> >> > 'ontologies' merely by examination of the axioms without
> >> > an understanding of their motivation (or whether they are
> >> > aware of or address the relevant issues) is a thankless task?
> >> >
> >> > I know from many discussions with Nicola that these kinds of
> >> > concern are part and parcel of his work in trying to build an
> >> > ontology. Not being particularly familiar with SUMO or CYC,
> >> > I wonder whether it is possible to divine their motivations
> >> > from the available documentation for dealing with
> >> > the hypothetical Mary's birthday example. Maybe a SUMO or
> >> > CYC person could comment.
> >> [PC] Since SUMO and CYC people monitor this list, I also hope
> >>that they will provide suggestions regarding specific issues.
> >>If we make a suggestion here (e.g. that a spatial location
> >>for #$Event/&%Process is a necessary relation) that they
> >>think is not an optimal structure for an ontology, I hope
> >>they will let us know and explain their views.
> >> I also hope that someone familiar with the DOLCE ontology
> >>will contribute to these discussions. As best I can
> >>tell, it does appear that in DOLCE an event (one type of
> >>"Perdurant") has a necessary spatial location, since
> >>Perdurants have spatial parts (which depends on the
> >>spatial locations of their participants). But that may
> >>not be the correct interpretation.
> >
> >
> > MW: If you look at Nicola's work, there are some more fundamental
> > differences you need to look at in world view.
> >
> [PC] I do hope that some DOLCE expert will make concrete
> suggestions, within this thread and others. I try to
> accommodate their views, but don't know enough to do
> that properly.
MW: Unless you are going to support a number of different ontological
foundations you have no chance of accomodating their views and those
of others of different persuasion (e.g. me).
>
> Pat
>
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
>
>