Re: SUO: RE: Link Grammar and Parser - RRGs
John Bateman wrote:
> SUO: "Suggested Upper Ontology".
>
> I guess the "upper" is something that people find hard to stick with.
>
>>Part of what is therefore necessary is that we begin to share
>>ideas and our understanding of our different domains, as well as
>>begin to construct a common understanding and lexicon.
>
> This cannot be correct. This means, paraphrased, that this group wants to
> talk about all domains and then model them. This is Cyc. If SUO
> starts making concrete suggestions for any particular domain then
> it is off-course *unless* this is being done by experts in that field.
Then you're doing more than paraphrasing. I wasn't suggesting anything
of the sort.
[...]
> If an activity of the SUO list is raising every member's awareness
> and expertise in all of the areas under discussion, then it is
> certainly a worthy enterprise: but I have no idea what that has to
> do with getting an upper ontology with some well constructed "not
> quite so upper" modules in place. The theory of quantum physics
> does not rest on a group of non-experts having agreed about its
> "understanding and lexicon" for that theory.
Building an upper ontology does not entail everyone be an expert in
every domain, nor does it require domain experts change their language,
nor does it imply that the theoretical framework of any domain relies
on the work of those outside of the domain -- I'm not sure where you
get these ideas; I have not suggested any of this. I have been
advocating (almost since I first joined this group) the prerequisite
for any upper ontology to be built, and that is the community of people
*capable* of creating it. This entails not simply domain expertise, but
also cooperative communication, the ability to listen to others, and
the willingness to work towards a common language and understanding
(the one expressing the upper ontology). Expertise without communication
is useless, the evidence for this is pretty clear.
But rather than engaging in further debate with you over the purposes
of this list/project, what constitutes appropriate discussion, etc.
(which we've seen far too much of lately anyway), I will leave this
with the notion that you and I obviously come to this arena with
different backgrounds and very different ideas of what it will take
to make something happen here. You come to the group with a specific
domain expertise and seem to believe a bunch of self-acknowledged
"experts" will somehow arrive here and do cooperative, productive
work, whereas I don't claim any specific domain expertise* and
firmly believe that we'll *never* see anything happen until there
is a community within which it can happen, and that you don't go
about creating community by telling people to keep quiet or attempt
to circumscribe what they say.
In the balance, we need a lot *less* expertise here and a lot *more*
cooperation and discussion. Expertise is highly overrated when experts
are talking at but not with each other.
Murray
* my interest and area of research for purposes here is in KR itself
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
A Governing Council member, Jalal Talabani, told Iran's official
news agency, IRNA, that Saddam Hussein's detention will bring
stability to Iraq. "With the arrest of Saddam, the source financing
terrorists has been destroyed and terrorist attacks will come to an
end. Now we can establish a durable stability and security in Iraq,"
Talabani was quoted as saying.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/14/international0759EST0465.DTL
yeah... right.