Avril Styrman delivered a final
judgment:
''Substance:
Everything that exists is a part of
Substance.
Everything except Substance itself is a proper
part of
Substance.
-----
There is nothing that is more clear than this, or it
is
as clear as the fact that something does exist (cogito
ergo sum).
Something does exists, and therefore there is
something that is the sum of
all that exists: Substance.
...
So, does anyone
disagree with this? If many do, it is
certainly a proof that maybe a
consensus cannot be reached.''
Avril, hardly
anybody dare disagree with you.
Azamat
Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 5:44
PM
Subject: Fwd: SUO Quo Vadis
Mark,
you asked whether of not this list is the right
place for
such a fundamental discussion that aims to reach a
consensus. If this is not the right place, then what is?
This has to
be the right place, and there is a clear need
to distinguish those
features about which everybody does
agree. It has to start from the
simplest of assumptions.
Does anyone disagree with the following
premiss:
----
Substance:
Everything that exists is a part of
Substance.
Everything except Substance itself is a proper
part of
Substance.
-----
There is nothing that is more clear than this, or
it is
as clear as the fact that something does exist (cogito
ergo sum).
Something does exists, and therefore there is
something that is the sum of
all that exists: Substance.
However, many people just can't accept it
because of the
following argument: "there can be something that we can
never understand, and that is why Substance cannot contain
everything
that exists". As a personal opinion, I think
that that argument is
completely ridiculous because it
is assumed that Substance contains also
those things that
we cannot understand -even if we cannot understand
them,
they are still a part of all that is, and if they are not
a part
of all that exists, they do not exist. It is
impossible to have something
that does exist and is not
a part of Substance because of the definition.
So, does anyone disagree with this? If many do, it is
certainly a
proof that maybe a consensus cannot be reached.
Avril
Styrman
----- Forwarded message from Mark Mattingley-Scott
<SCOTT@de.ibm.com> -----
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005
14:41:41 +0100
From: Mark Mattingley-Scott
<SCOTT@de.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Mark Mattingley-Scott
<SCOTT@de.ibm.com>
Subject: SUO Quo
Vadis
To:
standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG
I have been following this mailing
list for about half a year now, and
there have been a number of
interesting discussions on ULO's.
The point about mid level or domain
specific ontologies is accurate, and
important, but the main unanswered
question seems to me to be
"can an upper level ontology exist, and if
so what form does it take"
all the discussions i have seen assume that
such an upper level ontology
can exist. but none of them asks the a prioi
question: what form does it
take. i do not mean "what is its content", but
what form, what is the
basis, what are the fundamental
assumptions?
it may be that the sumo mailing list, or the IEEE group is
not the right
place for such a fundamental discussion, but I wanted to
raise this point
for discussion and comment. If the consensus is that we
can legitimately
discuss it here, then let's do
so.
regards,
Mark Mattingley-Scott, Ph.D.
Principal
Wireless
Broadband & Sensing Solutions EBO
Leader Asset Monitoring EMEA Central
Region
Senior Member I.E.E.E., M.G.K,
Chair I.E.E.E. SMC Germany
Chapter
Altrottstrasse 31, 69190 Walldorf,
Germany
mailto:scott@de.ibm.com; o/m: +49-171-335-1927; f:
+49-6221-1393-702
----- Forwarded by Mark Mattingley-Scott/Germany/IBM
on 11.12.2005 14:13
-----
James R Schoening <jim.s3@juno.com>
Sent by: standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG
10.12.2005
23:24
To
sowa@BESTWEB.NET
cc
lobrst@MITRE.ORG,
ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net,
standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG,
pulver@MITRE.ORG, ssemy@MITRE.ORG,
cg@CS.UAH.EDU
Subject
Re: updated
MITRE paper: Towards the Use of an Upper Ontology for U.S.
Government and
Military Domains
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:40:31 -0500
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
writes:
> Leo,
>
> Thanks for sending us the pointer to the latest version of
>
the report. It's a careful and thoughtful review of several
>
important projects that have been under development for a
> long
time:
>
>
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_04/04_0603/index.html
>
> But I'd like to comment on some of the conclusions. I
very
> strongly agree with the following passage in Section 7:
>
> > There is no agreed upon standard upper ontology and few
proven
> > implementations. Further, the differing theoretical
approaches
> > taken by the candidate standard upper ontologies
we examined
> > are evidence that there is no consensus on
which approach is
> > better. In fact, there may never be a
single correct answer.
> > Rather, which theoretical approach
is best may be situational.
>
> This would imply that it is
premature to recommend *any* upper
> ontology as a standard.
Another conclusion from Section 7:
>
> > Because upper
ontologies are evolving, the ?best? one today may
> > not
remain the ?best? in the future. However, upper ontologies
> >
do provide a theoretical foundation and give clues on concepts
>
> people may wish to consider in their ontology development,
even
> > if they don?t actually map their domain concepts to an
upper
> > ontology.
>
> That sounds reasonable,
but one might also say that the midlevel
> and domain-level ontologies
should be designed to avoid making
> any commitments that would restrict
their interoperability with
> any of the upper levels. For
example, Dolce seems to imply that
> a person's brain is essential to
his or her identity, but a heart
> is not. For most programs
written today, this question has not
> been relevant. Fingerprints
and DNA have been used in legal
> decisions, but brains have not been
considered. Therefore,
> there is no reason to adopt an SUO that
makes that commitment.
>
> > While there is an analysis
cost in selecting an upper ontology
> > as theoretical
framework, there is a greater cost in not doing
> so,
>
> especially when one is dealing with relatively abstract concepts.
>
> What cost? How has that been determined? Which abstract
concepts?
> Abstract concepts are the most difficult to define and the
most
> likely to vary from one ontology to the next. Wouldn't it
be better
> to avoid making any commitment to the details of any
version? If
> some application requires some mention of abstract
concepts, would
> it require anything more than what is contained in a
collection of
> terms with few or no axioms, such as WordNet? If
so, why make more
> assumptions than necessary? Mathematicians
always try to avoid
> making any assumptions that are not needed to
solve a given problem.
> That approach maximizes generality and
minimizes obsolescence.
>
> > Which upper ontology is
best to use as even a conceptual model is
> > situational and
may change over time as upper ontologies mature
> > and
experience is gained with their use. However, the risk of
>
> a suboptimal selection is mitigated by the fact that future
upper
> > ontologies are likely to be founded on current
candidate standard
> > upper ontologies.
>
> But
the current candidate upper ontologies have made different
>
assumptions. Any commitment to one assumption is going to be
>
incompatible with the others. When in doubt, leave it out.
>
> Computer programs have been communicating and interoperating
for
> over 40 years without an SUO. All those programs have had to
make
> assumptions about the low-level formats of the data, about
the
> symbols that are communicated, and about operational
constraints
> on the data. But those are low-level constraints,
not upper-level.
> Is there any evidence than an SUO would help those
programs? Or
> might it introduce irrelevant constraints that
could block other
> important operations?
>
> The stated
reason for not recommending OpenCyc is that it lacks
> rules.
>
But why should upper-level rules be important for interoperability?
>
What if those rules contradict constraints that are necessary for
> the
lower levels? What if they contradict the implicit assumptions
>
built into existing programs that are not based on any explicit
>
ontology? Must those programs be rewritten or even scrapped just
>
because somebody edicted a new ontology?
>
> Every program or
database that has ever been implemented makes
> ontological commitments,
and the likelihood that those commitments
> are identical to *any*
proposed upper ontology is nearly zero.
> Therefore, an SUO might be
incompatible with many, if not most
> existing programs in government
and industry. That implies that
> either (a) the SUO would create
major incompatibilities or (b) its
> axioms would be independent of the
assumptions built into all that
> software. Case (a) would imply
that the SUO would be a disaster,
> and case (b) would imply that it
would be irrelevant. Are there
> any intermediate cases where it
might be helpful? Has anyone done
> a study of existing
implementations in order to find out?
>
> In summary, this report
discusses many unresolved questions about
> all the proposals for an
upper ontology or even whether an upper
> ontology is desirable. I
would interpret it as a strong case for
> adopting a neutral position of
emphasizing the midlevel and domain
> levels. Unless anyone can
make a much stronger case for adopting
> a standard upper level, we
should avoid a commitment to any SUO.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
----- End forwarded message
-----
|