Re: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Dear Matthew and Eric,

I selected some excerpts from your recent exchange,
about which I'd like to add a few comments:

>MW: As I see it we are in the early stages of this.
> And as you know I talk in terms of years rather than months.

And the 10-year time frame of EPISTLE is probably reasonable.

>MW: I would see merging things that are accidentally different
> as important. I also see recognising real differences as
> important too.

Yes.  And until those "real differences" can be subsumed by a
more comprehensive theory, they will have to remain as options.
Later, we hope, they might be shown to be special cases of
some GUT (Grand Unified Theory). 

> [ELP]... But I claim that perhaps the most fundamental and
> important part of an OO or ontological design is its
> relational subset. 
>
> MW: In fact EXPRESS has its own implementation environment,
> but in EPISTLE we have as much looked for a relational
> implementation....
>
> MW: We don't have a standard database implementation.
> It is a point for competitive advantage or different 
> approaches for different purposes.  The rule is that the
> physical model should support the conceptual data model.

When you use logic, the differences between a relational DB
and an OODB vanish.  An ontology is a *conceptual model*,
which should be neutral with respect to any *data model*.

> [ELP]... The problem I see here is an unwillingness to do
> the hard work of getting down to the bedrock so we can build
> solid foundations....  That's why I'm suggesting starting
> with an existing ontology.  
>
>MW: Its really not far beneath our feet, and some is exposed.
> The bits I've found are First Order Logic, Set Theory (ies),
> Category Theory, Mereology, and you need to add a theory of
> individuals. Mine is 4 dimensionalism. It says we exist in
> a space-time manifold, we have temporal as well as spatial
> parts, and if two things have the same spatiotemporal extent,
> they are identical.

This is a good statement of a good starting point.  The main
problem with existing ontologies is that the main candidates
don't have solid foundations.  In fact, Doug Lenat is the first
to admit that the Cyc upper levels are not very important.  I
agree with him -- primarily because I think that the Cyc upper
level is a disaster zone and that a better foundation would
simplify much of the lower levels.

> [ELP] You want far more that the simple initial foundation
> than I want.  You want to load it up with axioms.  You want
> n^2 mappings between existing ontologies.  You don't like
> the existing candidates, so you seem to want to jump out
> into untested waters.  You are truly brave.
>
>MW: I just want to start with the foundations, and build it
> up incrementally.

I completely agree with Matthew on this point.  I believe that
the waters surrounding Cyc and SUMO are far more shark infested
than Matthew's.

>MW: In the mean time we should discuss the foundations for
> a 3D ontology so we can have a principled and grounded base
> for that. I think Nicola's paper(s) and Ted Sider's book are
> good places to start.

You have to be very careful with Nicola's DOLCE.  One of his
fundamental assumptions is totally inconsistent with Matthew's
principle "if two things have the same spatiotemporal extent,
they are identical."

As an example, Nicola assumes that a vase and the lump of
clay that constitutes the vase are two distinct individuals.
In principle, his ontology can have any number of distinct
individuals collocated in exactly the same spatiotemporal
extent.

It might be possible to build a consistent ontology on DOLCE's
foundations, but it is inconsistent with established usage in
science, engineering, and ordinary language (not to mention
SUMO and Cyc as well).

> [ELP] I hope we agree that SUO is doing something much more
> complex and much less proven.
> 
> MW: No, I just see it as taking the next incremental step
> from where we were.

I agree with Matthew.  I believe it is far safer to start
with solid foundations, along the lines that Matthew is
recommending, than to start with the upper levels of either
SUMO or Cyc.

>MW: Development is doing something specific - developing a
> product, or supporting a project. Standards work is
> developing stuff that can be reused later. Often by picking
> up experience from projects and making it more general,
> sometimes by noting a problem and doing research to get
> to a good solution. We are in the latter category here.

I agree.  And I view OpenCyc, SUMO, and other ontologies as
resources that we can pick up and make more general.  There
are certainly enough problems in all of them that would
require research to get a good solution.

>MW: Ted Sider's book and Nicola's paper talk about some of
> the issues where you need clarity about your position.
> Unclarity leads to ambiguity which leads to different
> interpretations being possible, both in extending
> the ontology and holes in inferencing over it.

Yes.  Even though I think that Nicola made some seriously
wrong assumptions, his discussions can be valuable, even
when we choose to insert "not" into his assumptions.

> [ELP]... but if you completely threw out any trace of the
> previous work (including the experienced gained) - never mind.
>
>MW: No of course not. I only mean that over a 10 year period,
> by the time we finished you could not see much if anything
> of the start point.

Yes.  I don't expect the SUO upper levels to resemble the
current upper levels of either SUMO or OpenCyc, but we can
profit from analyzing their assumptions and looking for deeper,
broader, and more general foundations.

>MW: it is really being disciplined about managing an issues
> log.  During ballot cycles/ review periods issues against
> the standard can be raised. These must be logged. You then
> work diligently to resolve those issues, seeking agreement
> of those who raised them that they have been resolved, or
> noting that this is too difficult at the present time.
> This visibility inspires confidence, and means people feel
> engaged rather than ignored. operated properly it is a very
> good way to stimulate an improvement culture.

An excellent summary.  And a registry is an important adjunct
to such a log:  the log is organized chronologically, and the
registry is organized hierarchically, but both of them should
have cross-references to one another.

John Sowa