RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Matthew,
Comments below.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:29 AM
> To: Ian Niles; John F. Sowa; Erik Larson; Fowler, Julian; Jon Awbrey;
> Burkett, Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> 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: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 24 June 2003 18:17
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Ian Niles; John F. Sowa;
> Erik Larson;
> > Fowler, Julian; Jon Awbrey; Burkett, Bill;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> > Matthew,
> >
> > Comments below.
> >
> > -Ian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:38 AM
> > > To: Ian Niles; John F. Sowa; Erik Larson; Fowler, Julian;
> > Jon Awbrey;
> > > Burkett, Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ian,
> > >
> > > 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: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > > > Sent: 23 June 2003 18:58
> > > > To: 'John F. Sowa'; Erik Larson; Fowler, Julian; Jon
> > > Awbrey; Burkett,
> > > > Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology
> as science)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > I hope you don't mind if I jump in here. It's
> true, as the
> > > > quotation from the WonderWeb paper asserts, that the
> > > > developers of the SUMO
> > > > did not assume a "specific theoretical approach" in creating
> > > > and refining
> > > > the ontology. However, this does not imply, as you seem to
> > > > believe, that
> > > > there is no metaphysical perspective which has guided the
> > > > development of the
> > > > ontology. In fact, the SUMO is firmly rooted in metaphysical
> > > > naturalism,
> > > > viz. the belief that the natural world, the world of physical
> > > > processes and
> > > > objects, is all that there is. Since naturalism is
> > > > compatible with many
> > > > theoretical orientations, it is possible to be both
> > > > metaphysically grounded
> > > > and ontologically eclectic.
> > >
> > > MW: Looking this up in the OED suggests that this is mostly about
> > > excluding spiritual and supernatural matters. Is that what you
> > > mean?
> >
> > Right, excluding everything that cannot be regarded as a
> > description of a
> > physical object or process (at some level of abstraction).
> >
> > >
> > > MW: This leaves quite a lot open (well almost everything in fact).
> > > In particular 3D/4D.
> >
> > I did address this controversy in my message. Since the
> > consensus of this
> > list has been, I think, that the two representations are
> > intertranslatable,
> > let's just pick one and use a mapping in cases where the
> other is more
> > convenient.
>
> MW: Then you also need the other one to map to...
> >
> > >
> > > MW: Where do you stand on possible and modal matters? Do you admit
> > > the Starship Enterprise or Sherlock Holmes as things one can talk
> > > about (I can't find these in nature). And how about things like
> > > stock options? Abstract objects are not part of the natural world,
> > > but I assume you do not wish to exclude those do you?
> >
> > I agree that we can meaningfully talk about fictional objects, stock
> > options, and abstract objects. However, I don't think the
> > meaning of these
> > things is conferred by a Platonic form or some other such
> > nonsense. I'd
> > prefer a Wittgensteinian approach that cashed out their
> > content in terms of
> > their function in the language game of which they're a part.
>
> MW: I thought you were disdaining metaphysics - and then you name drop
> like this!
Name-dropping? This is just Intro to Philosophy stuff.
>
> MW: So what does/would Sherlock Holmes and the Starship Enterprise
> refer to? What language game are they a part of?
They are both part of the language game of creating/discussing fictional
texts.
>
> MW: In what sense is a stock option involved in a language game?
Well, a stock option is a socio-cultural artifact. It's an agreement by one
party, a publicly owned corporation, to sell a set number of shares to
another party, usually an employee of the corporation.
> >
> > > >
> > > > As I've said before, I think that the whole purpose of
> > > > a standard
> > > > upper ontology is defeated if one assumes anything beyond
> > > > naturalism. For
> > > > one thing, the add-ons
> > >
> > > MW: Could you give some examples of what you mean by "add-ons"?
> >
> > Well, there are metaphysical positions that are incompatible with
> > naturalism, e.g. Platonic realism or dualism. However, I
> > don't think these
> > alternatives or the others like them would promote any of the
> > applications
> > mentioned in the SUO Scope and Purpose statment. Furthermore, as I
> > mentioned below, these other metaphysics would tend to
> alienate large
> > classes of academic users.
>
> MW: Well I would not include them either unless there were a
> significant
> group that was prepared to work on their inclusion. This is not simply
> an academic exercise, and in general I find that the best indicator of
> what is valuable is the willingness of people and organisations to
> commit resources to the development of artifacts - including SUMO.
Well, by that measure, SUMO is a success. There are dozens of organizations
that are actively using SUMO. Just google SUMO ontology or ontologies.
> >
> > You and John have been arguing, I take it, that the SUMO is
> > lacking because
> > it was built upon a sufficiently robust metaphysical foundation.
>
> MW: The underlying issue is that without a clear foundation,
> the ontology tends to be ambiguous, because different people
> can overlay
> different assumptions and interpretations on the same constructs.
I don't think this is the issue. I would tend to regard any extra
metaphysical assumptions beyond naturalism as just so much hot air.
However, see below for my response to your specific examples.
>
> > I've
> > responded that we did assume a metaphysical perspective in
> > constructing the
> > ontology, viz. naturalism, and I argued that this perspective
> > was enough. I
> > don't think anything else is needed. If you think something
> > additional or
> > different is needed, please let me know what that is.
>
> MW: How you deal with change is the biggest one. I notice Chris
> is already pursuing this.
>
> MW: Beyond that I can only suggest that you read Ted Sider's
> book Four Dimensionalism. A large part of which is actually about
> some different flavours of 3 dimensionalism that are possible.
> He is setting them up to knock them down, but he does enumerate
> a number of 3D positions that have been taken in the literature.
> Your's may be one of them, or none of them, (it can't be all of
> them) but it would be useful to say which up front.
> >
> > >
> > > > will always alienate those who are
> > > > ontologically
> > > > committed to the negation of the add-ons, and, to the extent
> > > > that people
> > > > refuse to use the ontology, it will not serve its intended
> > > function of
> > > > semantic middleware. For another thing, the add-ons
> are, I claim,
> > > > unnecessary. Although they may arouse deep passions among
> > > > philosophers, we
> > > > have yet to find one that is needed to facilitate semantic
> > > > interoperability.
> > > > The closest we've come is in the 3D/4D dispute, but, even
> > > > there, I think the
> > > > consensus was that you could simply pick one representation
> > > > and then provide
> > > > a mapping to the other.
> > >
> > > MW: It is not as simple as that. They have different expressive
> > > capabilities.
> >
> > I hate to risk resurrecting this whole debate, but I think
> > the conclusion
> > was that the two schemes or representation are intertranslatable.
>
> MW: From which I understand that it was at least your conclusion.
> Mine was that we need both because they (potentially at least) have
> different areas of application.
> >
> > >
> > > > This is exactly what we have done
> > > > with the SUMO.
> > >
> > > MW: So which one did you pick? What flavour does it have?
> >
> > It's 3D.
> >
> > > >
> > > > In any case, perhaps rather than citing chapter
> and verse from
> > > > Pierce, you could cite an example where a metaphysical
> > > assumption more
> > > > robust than that of naturalism is needed to facilitate
> one of the
> > > > applications mentioned in the SUO Scope and Purpose statement.
> > >
> > > MW: Naturalism is hardly a complete metaphysical foundation. It is
> > > just one of the things you need.
> >
> > So what else do you need? Really, Matthew, you and John
> > ought to be able to
> > give me one example. That's all I'm asking for.
>
> MW: I've mentioned one above
>
> - how you deal with change.
In the SUMO, change is always represented as a 'Process' from one
'Attribute' or 'Relation' to another. For example, 'Melting'
(http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Melting&skb
=SUMO) is a change of state from 'Solid' to 'Liquid', and 'Translocation'
(http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Translocati
on&skb=SUMO) is a change from one location to another.
>
> But how about:
>
> - what it means to be an individual (process or physical
> object - or both?).
In the SUMO, to be an instance of 'Process' or 'Object' is to have a
location in space/time.
>
> - What sorts of things physical quantities are (pressures,
> temperatures etc)
I don't see that the ontology has to take a stand on what pressures,
temperatures, and other physical quantities *really* are. All we need to do
is to offer a formalization which allows different people and different
systems to say all they need to say to communicate with one another and
perform certain standard inferences.
>
> Your responses to these things will give some insight into
> your metaphysics.
I think I'm still a naturalist simpliciter.
> >
> > > >
> > > > -Ian
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:31 AM
> > > > > To: Erik Larson; John F. Sowa; Fowler, Julian; Jon
> > > Awbrey; Burkett,
> > > > > Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology
> > as science)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Erik,
> > > > >
> > > > > I mentioned SUMO as an example of a monolithic ontology
> > > > > because Adam has been insisting for a long time that there
> > > > > is no need to support options, modules, or microtheories.
> > > > >
> > > > > He agreed to vote for motion #2, but he remains unconvinced
> > > > > about the need for any kind of modularity that goes beyond
> > > > > the simple decomposition of SUMO into 11 modules, all of which
> > > > > are assumed (but not yet proven) to be consistent with one
> > > > > another.
> > > > >
> > > > > The definition of a monolithic ontology is one that is (or
> > > > > can be) stated as a single consistent theory with no room
> > > > > for incompatible options. That is what SUMO is today, but
> > > > > it's definitely not what Cyc is. I don't know about DOLCE.
> > > > >
> > > > > > John, you're not singling out SUMO as a
> "monolithic" ontology
> > > > > > are you? Many would agree that it's significantly less
> > > > > > monolithic then its competitors, specifically becuase it was
> > > > > > designed with communities of users in mind. For instance...
> > > > >
> > > > > Those quotations from Guarino and OpenCyc state principles,
> > > > > which don't say anything about modularity. I believe it is
> > > > > a mistake not to emphasize modularity and options. But I know
> > > > > that Cyc does have about 6000 microtheories, and I hope that
> > > > > mechanism (or something like it) eventualy makes its way into
> > > > > OpenCyc and whatever is proposed by the SUO Working Group.
> > > > >
> > > > > >SUMO:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Because of its characteristic merging of different
> upper level
> > > > > > ontologies, SUMO is actually not influenced by a specific
> > > > > > theoretical approach, rather it tends to take from various
> > > > > > ontological proposals those general categories which seem
> > > > > > to be largely shared by the computer science community.
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt that Guarino or the Cyclers would question the value
> > > > > of borrowing ideas and axioms from many different sources.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when people say that they have "not been influenced by
> > > > > a specific theoretical approach" that merely means that they
> > > > > have not fully analyzed their assumptions. That is not a good
> > > > > sign -- it implies that that they have not done their
> homework.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Given your interest in avoiding biases in the construction
> > > > > > of an SUO, it seems you ought to be receptive to the SUMO
> > > > > > approach. Are you?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll reply with a quotation from my favorite philsopher,
> > > > > C. S. Peirce:
> > > > >
> > > > > Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any
> > > > > metaphysics... and you have found one whose doctrines are
> > > > > thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized
> metaphysics
> > > > > with which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the
> > > > > great naturalist Aristotle -- if only to avoid
> > philosophizing.
> > > > > Every man of us has a metaphysics, and has to have one; and
> > > > > it will influence his life greatly. Far better, then, that
> > > > > that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed
> > > > > to run loose.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peirce said this about Ernst Mach and the positivists, but
> > > > > he would have been even more vehemently opposed to the logical
> > > > > positivists of the 1920s and 30s. It also applies to anybody
> > > > > who claims no influence from "a specific theoretical
> approach."
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>