Re: SUO: Unanimous consent
Hello. I'm back and catching up. I agree, in general, with the tenor of
Pierre's remarks below, and with some of Matthew's. Specifics embedded.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre Grenon" <pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de>
To: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 17:16
Subject: RE: SUO: Unanimous consent
>
> Dear Matthew and Jay,
>
> some comments
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> > > Re: the discussion of acceptability of SUO starter documents,
> > > and the lack
>
> [...]
>
> > > Since we currently lack them, this is an opportunity for the group to
> > > formulate some at least minimally necessary criteria for
> > > acceptability of
> > > officially sanctioned starter documents. I suggest, to begin
> > > with, that
> > > 1)
> > > some formal specification of the language of an ontology
> > > should be required,
> >
> > MW: I agree.
>
> My first thought is that we need to declare a common language or a family
> thereof. CL comes to mind. Anything like a FOL language should do enough
to get
> to the core and approximate a good level of formalization. OTOH, I am
receptive
> to the overload claim. However, remark that a proposer of a document
should
> provide this service instead of requesting the whole group to get familiar
with
> yet another syntax.
Yes, and for these specificitions the family of languages we might consider
the SCL work on abstract syntaxes.
>
> You cannot expect a group to form, to do the translation job in logical
syntax
> (which ought to occur, so it seems to me), then axiomatize the intuitions
> expressed in a documentation before it starts wondering where
> are the putative inconsistencies, gaps and so on. The SUO WG is supposed
to do
> the second kind of tasks on a starter.
I agree.
> At a later level of maturity of the
> candidate, issues of adequacy and acceptability might arise in addition.
> (Although some such debates should arise when deciding whether a candidate
> starter has good chances to success if further developed within this
group.)
>
> On second thought, I think the language might not be such an issue,
especially
> if, as it seems, all we care about is a syntax (in the context of a
starter).
> From that standpoint, the main advantage of formal logical notation is
> readibility (over EXPRESS, say) and absence of ambiguity (over English,
say).
>
> Actually, I might not whine at a document presenting tersely in English
the
> following elements of the theory:
>
> 1) gloss of primitive vocabulary (including meta-language as needed)
>
> 2) definitions
>
> 3) axioms
>
> Options: Examples, Notes explaining informally the background intuition.
Something like this scheme should be sufficient for a starter level
document.
>
> > MW: This is available - at least sufficient to build compilers.
> > EXPRESS is specified in ISO 10303-11.
>
> Do you have to buy that?
Pierre alludes to a problem with your submission, Matthew. As far as I can
tell, the core Express documentation is only available for purchase at a
fairly hefty price. How is any SUO working group going to afford that?
>
> > > and 2) at least some formal axiomatization of content should
> > > be required,
> > > together with an explicit indication, even if informal, of how
> > > axiomatization is intended to be done.
> >
> > MW: There is some formal axiomatisation. Each line on the diagrams
>
> I'm leery about visual languages. They tend to hide the true conplexity of
the
> axiomatization and the semantics is far from being obvious usually, if
there's
> one. More generally, we've had a couple of PDF files with diagrammatic
> representations of BFO around for more than a year. Would you find this an
> acceptible document? I hope not.
I agree with Pierre, here, that a visual diagram alone isn't really
sufficiently
clear. Diagrams have their own ambiguities.
>
> > represents an axiom, some other marks do too. I can appreciate you
> > may have as much difficulty determining what they mean as I do with
> > KIF. Don't expect sympathy though.
>
> Then try English, just being rigorous. It reads well in your papers. But
> really, S-KIF (SUMO) is manageable, CycL even more intuitive imho (just
strings
> of letters). That kind of things is close enough to plain English with a
> slightly weird syntax and impoverished grammar, you can even curse in
CycL.
> Maybe that's a non native speaker illusion.
Yes, but Cycl is still a hodge podge of syntax of various kinds (that is
both a virtue -- the multiplicity of the syntactical notions
-- and a vice); the parts aren't clearly distinguished enough and separable
with respect to inference, I fear.
>
> The point is that axioms should not be buried as intuitions, be left
implicit
> or mixed up with informal gloss in the documentation. They should all be
> extracted and put naked in a section of a document. They can be commented,
if
> you use a formalism, they should probably be paraphrased.
>
> > MW: But let us try to quantify this:
>
> I hope this is irony. Seems to me that we're speaking about something that
> precisely can't be meaningfully quantified.
>
> > 1. How many concepts should a starter document have:
> > a) as a minimum?
>
> 1?
>
> According to your ISO habits, it seems that I could start with one
concept,
> say, individual and claim I have an exhaustive ontology. I guess John Sowa
has
> probably discussed that kind of ontologies somewhere.
>
> Seriously, if you are clear about your intuitions or the theory you
propound,
> all the concepts that appear / are used / are necessary (not sure which
> criteria are the right ones) in the theory you put forward to provide
adeqaute
> understanding / expressiveness should be declared.
Right (the last paragraph, just above).
>
> > b) as a maximum?
>
> The question is meaningful only as concern the defined concepts. I'd say,
only
> define what allows your to express more tersely the axioms of your theory.
No
> need to provide a list of concepts by boolean combination if your theory
> conatins axioms which would do the job. (Just an example, I hope no SUO
does
> that, it might work for set theory, but this is dreadful in ontology.)
>
> >
> > 2. What ratio of axioms to concepts should a starter document
> > contain?
I suppose it should provide the basic axioms pertaining to each primitive
concept.
>
> Axioms in the starter should reflect your present understanding and
mastery of
> your theory. How many principles are there in your theory that you would
care
> enough to stipulate?
> Now, you don't have to shoot for minimality in the case of a starter
proposal,
> I think. Finding a better axiomatization would be the job of the WG,
however,
> the point is to find a 'better' one, not to find one, which supposes that
> there's one. This would presumably require more understanding of a
suitable
> logic.
Right.
> In that connection, it might be that you feel that some principles ought
to be
> deducible from other axioms. I would list them as axioms in a starter
proposal
> with such a mention. It would be useful for three reasons:
> - this would give a notion of what you consider useful to state (even
despite
> the fact that you feel that what you state is not so fundamental as not to
be
> deducible)
> - this would provide hints concerning the logic you assume (it's not
trivial
> for a proposition to be a theorem)
> - this would facilitate the job of the group when it comes to work on the
> axiomatization
>
> > > Finally, 3) that some
> > > characterization of the logical system or systems intended to
> > > be employed in
> > > automated reasoning over the ontology should be given.
>
> Jay,
> I think that we can't expect that from a starter document, unless the
document
> itself makes claims about the logic. If you request the three numbered
items
> above, you have a theory. What you do with the theory, how appropriate it
is,
> which logic it requires and how the axioms might need to be rewritten
could be
> seen as development of a candidate standard within this group.
Perhaps you're right, for a minimal starter document, intended to be
developed by a working group.
>
> But, I agree this is something we want the standard to specify. It seems
to me
> that a specification of a full logic should be a basic elelemnt of the
standard
> documents.
>
> > MW: An EXPRESS based system ensures that the axioms specified are
> > conformed to by data sets that claim to be models of the ontology.
> > Not sure if that counts as automated reasoning. If not, why is
> > automated reasoning a necessary purpose? I can appreciate it might
> > be where your interest lies.
> >
> > MW: As it happens my intention would be to develop the material
> > from something that had been initially developed for one purpose,
> > to something that had wider applicability, but I don't see why
> > it should be necessary to complete that before it can be a starter
> > document (makes an oxymoron of the "starter" part to me).
Right (as I say above). But some informal indication (with a minimal formal
component, such as Pierre gives above) should be made of the direction in
which the document is supposed to move.
> > >
> > > Each of the 3 criteria above (particularly the formal
> > > aspects) will have to
> > > be met at some point anyway, if a formal upper ontology is to
> > > fit into, say,
> > > the IFF framework, or into a lattice of theories.
>
> Yes, but these criteria seems to me global in the context of the Sowa
drift, I
> mean lattice of theory (or is it registry?)
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > MW: I think it is important to be clear about what stage you are at,
> > but what I am hearing from some people is that you should necessarily
> > start at around the CD level. I think that is a bad idea.
>
> It was fine for the SUO WG to start with a New Item.
>
> Inside this group, you want to have as much as you can at any stage. It
might
> seem to you that what I suggest is of an high level of completion, but in
my
> understanding it is not. The main part of the job is review which involves
> internal development and comparaison with other starters. And this is
nothing
> like what I suggest for the starter which is barely explicitation.
And there should be a method (a basis, a framework) for comparison with
other starters -- hence, something like SCL.
>
> The problem is that this group tends not to be productive and to act as a
mere
> decisional body. You could be more radical than I am and, observing the
way
> this
> group seems to function, claim that there should be no starter at all,
only
> candidates for being standard. We would just vote on yes and no (no
> standardization process here anyway). At some point, when less people use
the
> word 'ontology' or when most of us changed their carrer objectives, we
gather
> all the rescapees of the votes put them in a tree (top node is the
ontology
> with one concept, of course, there would be just one level of leaves, all
> ontologies on a par) and call that the Registered Upper-Level Ontology
> Standard.
>
> > MW: I think it would be good to establish some process like this with
> > associated deliverables. We could adopt the same levels as ISO (but
> > rename them) as a start for this.
Something like the ISO process/mechanisms might be useful, for guiding peer
review, and focusing SUO efforts
>
> Oh, I agree with that if you mean turning this discussion list into a
working
> group, I'm all for it. In that case, it makes sense to qualify what I've
said
> in the previous paragraph. But I fear we're speaking major procedural
debates
> for a few years here.
>
>
> --
> Pierre Grenon
> IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
> Haertelstr. 16-18
> 04107 Leipzig
> http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
> pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
> phone: 49(0)351971672
> fax: 49(0)3519716179
> a.Á&
>