SUO: RE: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
Dear Ian,
See comments below.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 22 February 2001 23:31
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> Thanks for compiling this helpful outline of the sorts
> of content
> that we want to incorporate into the merged ontology. Below
> I try to map
> some of your categories to concepts in the merged ontology and to give
> pointers to sections of the ontology that cover this content.
> I hope this
> will be useful to people who want to use or contribute to the merged
> ontology document.
MW: Do you have some things in the merged ontology that are not found here?
(e.g. holes).
>
> -Ian
>
> P.S. I'm attaching the latest version of the merged ontology.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> > [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 9:58 AM
> > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: SUO: A proposed SUO content outline
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Some time ago now I proposed a number of documents that
> > together could help
> > us to manage, guide, and provide information about our work.
> > Please find
> > below a first draft of one of these. The content is based on what is
> > available in the EPISTLE Core Model. Comments are welcome.
> >
> > o-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> > ---o
> > An Outline for the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology
> > Version 0.1
> >
> > Editor: Matthew West - Shell Services International
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > This document identifies the content for the IEEE Standard
> > Upper Ontology. As such it represents a map of what has been
> > developed, or what has been proposed. It is not a constraint
> > on what may be, or is in the SUO. It will need to be updated
> > as development progresses.
> >
> > The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the
> > SUO, and to provide a means to manage and co-ordinate effort in
> > developing the SUO.
> >
> > The target audience for this document is those who are thinking
> > of using the SUO to give them an idea of what it covers, and
> > those who are developing the SUO to help to structure and relate
> > the work of development.
> >
> > This document provides a textual representation of the areas to
> > be covered, and the dependency between them.
> >
> > Subject Area Structured List
> >
> > This section presents a structured list of subject areas,
> > showing the dependency between them through an indented list.
> > The following section provides descriptions of the elements in
> > the list.
> >
> > 1. Thing
> > 1.1. Individual
> > 1.1.1. State
> > 1.1.1.1. Period of Time
> > 1.1.1.2. Activity
> > 1.1.1.3. Physical Object
> > 1.1.1.3.1. Materialised Physical Object
> > 1.1.1.3.2. Functional Physical Object
> > 1.1.1.3.3. Stream
> > 1.1.2. Temporal Boundary
> > 1.1.2.1. Point in Time
> > 1.1.2.2. Event
> > 1.2. Collection
> > 1.2.1. Class
> > 1.2.1.1. Class of Individual
> > 1.2.1.1.1. Quantifiable Property
> > 1.2.1.1.2. Role
> > 1.2.1.1.3. Status
> > 1.2.1.1.4. Organisational Level
> > 1.2.1.1.4.1. Shape
> > 1.2.1.1.5. Information Pattern
> > 1.2.1.2. Class of Class
> > 1.2.1.2.1. Number
> > 1.2.1.2.2. Class of Relation
> > 1.2.1.2.2.1. Specialisation
> > 1.2.1.2.2.2. Unit of Measure Mapping of Property to Number Space
> > 1.2.1.2.2.3. Class of Representation
> > 1.2.1.2.2.3.1. Identification
> > 1.2.1.2.2.3.2. Definition
> > 1.2.1.2.2.3.3. Description
> > 1.2.1.3. Relation
> > 1.2.1.3.1. Classification
> > 1.2.1.3.2. Cause and Effect
> > 1.2.1.3.3. Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.1. Fusion Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.2. Arrangement Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.3. Assembly Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.4. Feature Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.5. Temporal Whole-Part
> > 1.2.1.3.3.6. Participation in Activity
> > 1.2.1.3.3.7. Temporal Bounding of State
> > 1.2.1.3.3.8. Containment of Individual
> > 1.2.1.3.4. Connection
> > 1.2.1.3.5. Temporal Sequence
> > 1.2.1.3.6. Involvement in Activity
> > 1.2.2. Set
> >
> > Subject Area Descriptions
> >
> > This section provides an informal description of the subject
> > areas outlined in the previous section. All the objects
> >
> > Thing
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all things.
>
> The highest-level node in the merged ontology is 'Entity'.
> The most general
> classes under this node and axioms about these classes are
> covered in the
> sections "General Classes" and "General Axioms",
> respectively, of the merged
> ontology document.
MW: I have explained elsewhere why we have used thing rather than entity,
not that the name is so important.
>
> >
> > Individual
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations for apply to all things that
> > exists in space time.
>
> It sounds like your notion of "Individual" has the same meaning as
> 'Physical' in the merged ontology, which is a direct subclass
> of 'Entity'
> and is defined as follows:
>
> (documentation Physical "An entity that has a location in
> space-time. Note
> that
> points of space and time are themselves understood to have a
> location in
> space-time")
MW: That looks like a hit to me, though occurrent and continuent find no
place here.
>
> >
> > State
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all individuals
> > that have a non-zero temporal extent.
>
> I don't see how "State" differs from "Individual". Since all
> individuals
> exist in space/time, wouldn't they necessarily have a
> non-zero temporal
> extent?
MW: But you just said above that points in time are individuals, whereas
here we say that these are not states.
>
> >
> > Period of Time
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all individuals
> > that cover all of space between two points in time.
>
> The corresponding axioms and relations in the merged ontology
> can be found
> in the section "Temporal Definitions/Axioms".
MW: it will be interesting to see if they remain valid in a 4D ontology.
>
> >
> > Activity
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all individuals
> > that are something happening to bring about change.
>
> As I've mentioned in other emails, the subject of change has not been
> systematically addressed in the merged ontology. I'm researching the
> possibility of incorporating something like the Situation
> Calculus, and I
> would welcome any suggestions along these lines.
MW: I think what we have here may be nearer to your event and process.
Change is handled by states starting and terminating here.
>
> >
> > Physical Object
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all individuals
> > that is a distribution of matter, energy, or both.
>
> This would correspond to 'Object' in the merged ontology,
> which is a direct
> subclass of 'Physical'. The node of 'Object' figures into
> many selectional
> restrictions in the merged ontology, which are expressed with the
> 'nth-domain' predicate.
MW: Hm. I won't start on that again here.
>
> >
> > Materialised Physical Object
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all physical
> > objects that have essential continuity of material or energy,
> > e.g. Car N199FOW.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "essential continuity of
> material or energy",
> so I guess I'm unclear about how this class is distinguished from the
> superclass.
MW: it is about the sorts of change that are allowed. Perhaps you know the
story of the cleaner who when they retired was given a special award for how
well they had looked after their mop, which was as good as the day ther were
first employed 30 years before. When asked how they managed it they replied
"Oh each week I changed the head, and every 6 months I would change the
handle instead". It remains one mop because at no time were all the parts
changed simultaneously. This is an extreme example of "essential material
continuity".
>
> >
> > Functional Physical Object
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all physical
> > objects that have functional, but need not have material
> > continuity, e.g. the Chairman of Shell.
>
> I'm somewhat confused by your example. It seems to me that
> the concept
> "Chairman of Shell" can be understood in two different ways,
> either as the
> class of all people who have assumed this role or as the person who
> currently holds this title. If it denotes a class, then it
> doesn't have
> "material continuity" for the same reason that no class or
> set has material
> continuity - they're abstract objects. However, since the
> elements of this
> class are people, they do have material continuity. If, on
> the other hand,
> "Chairman of Shell" denotes a particular person, then it does
> have "material
> continuity", contrary to what you say. I hope you can clear
> up my confusion
> here.
MW: The Chairman of Shell consists of the temporal parts of all those people
who have been the Chairman of Shell whilst they held the post. These parts
of those people are physical objects, and so so is their aggregate.
>
> >
> > Stream
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all physical
> > objects that is material or energy moving along a path, e.g.
> > a traffic stream flowing on the freeway, some liquid flowing
> > in a pipe.
>
> This is a definite gap in the merged ontology, and I would welcome any
> contributions towards filling it.
MW: It is a remarkably tricky area.
>
> >
> > Temporal Boundary
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all individuals
> > that have a zero temporal extent.
>
> It sounds like "Temporal Boundary" corresponds to the class
> of 'Abstract',
> another direct subclass of 'Entity'. Some axioms regarding
> 'Abstract' can
> be found in the section "General Axioms" of the merged ontology.
MW: No. These are things that exist in space time, so they cannot be
classes. They just have a zero extent in the time dimension, they are at a
point in time.
>
> >
> > Point in Time
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all temporal
> > boundaries that are across all space, e.g. 3pm 20th February
> > 2001 UTC.
>
> The definitions for the functions corresponding to the
> concepts of year,
> month, day, hour, second, etc. are covered at the end of the section
> "Temporal Definitions/Axioms" of the merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Event
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all temporal
> > boundaries that mark the beginning or end of some state.
>
> This corresponds to the concept of 'DiscreteProcess' in the
> merged ontology,
> which is a direct subclass of 'Process' and which has
> 'Act/Action' as an
> immediate subclass. The documentation for 'DiscreteProcess'
> is as follows:
>
> (documentation DiscreteProcess "In a discrete process, which
> is typical of
> computer programs or idealized approximations to physical
> processes, changes
>
> occur in discrete steps called events, which are interleaved
> with periods of
>
> inactivity called states.")
>
> Currently there are no axioms for 'DiscreteProcess' in the
> merged ontology.
MW: This is not what is meant by event here. What you describe would come
under activity.
>
> >
> > Collection
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all things that
> > have members.
>
> These axioms and relations are covered in the new,
> provisional section "Set
> Theory" of the merged ontology. I say "provisional", because SUO
> participants haven't seen this stuff before, and it is subject to
> revision/rejection.
MW: Collection here is a superclass of class and set, where set and class
overlap significantly.
>
> >
> > Class
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all collections
> > to which we attach significance.
>
> In other words, by "Class" you mean a set that forms a
> natural kind? If so,
> then your concept of "Class" corresponds exactly with the
> concept of 'Class'
> in the merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Class of Individual
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > have only individuals as members, e.g. pump, car.
>
> One idea that strikes me is that we could make 'Class' a
> direct subclass of
> 'Set'. This would allow us to apply all of the set-theoretic
> definitions/axioms to classes, as well as sets. This isn't
> the way things
> are currently structured in the ontology (currently, 'Set'
> and 'Class' are
> disjoint siblings of the parent class 'SetOrClass'), but it may be a
> convenient way of reusing the set-theoretic apparatus in the
> context of
> intensional classes.
MW: yes but some classes, e.g. the proper classes are not sets.
>
> >
> > Quantifiable Property
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all Class of
> > Individual that can be mapped to a number and unit of measure.
>
> This is covered in the section "Quantities and Units of
> Measure" in the
> merged ontology. The key concept in the section is the function
> 'MeasureFn', which is defined as follows:
>
> (instance-of MeasureFn BinaryFunction)
> (nth-domain MeasureFn 1 RealNumber)
> (nth-domain MeasureFn 2 Unit-Of-Measure)
> (range MeasureFn Measure)
> (documentation MeasureFn "This function maps a real number
> and a unit of
> measure
> to that number of units.")
MW: The detail should make an interesting comparison.
>
> >
> > Role
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > indicate the role some thing plays in an activity or relation.
>
> What you are calling a "Role" is covered in the section
> "Definitions of
> Basic Binary Relations" in the merged ontology.
MW: In a 4D world these things are treated rather differently.
>
> >
> > Status
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > are characteristics or qualities that is described by discrete,
> > unordered values.
>
> I agree that this is an important category, and it is also a
> gap in the
> current version of the merged ontology.
MW: This stuff is relatively straight forward. They are just soe classes
that states belong to (in fact they are often thigns that many people refer
to as states (as in state-transition) in the first place).
>
> >
> > Organisational Level
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > define the level of structure, e.g. atom, molecule, cell,
> > organism.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Do you envision
> having a predicate
> that would relate a class with a quantitative or qualitative attribute
> specifying the level of granularity of the class? This might
> be a good
> idea, and there is nothing like this in the current version
> of the ontology.
> Note that the folks at the Ontology Group at ITBM-CNR have
> developed an
> ontology called "Granularity" to cover just this sort of
> representational
> need.
MW: Nicola Guarino has a paper about "ontological levels" that this is
broadly based on. I haven;t thought about how it might be represented in
KIF.
>
> >
> > Shape
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > indicate the form of one or more individuals.
>
> Just as a placeholder, I'll suggest adding 'AbstractShape' as a direct
> subclass of 'Abstract' in the merged ontology.
MW: Well of course I would have all abstract things as classes (or more
strictly collections).
>
> >
> > Information Pattern
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > define a pattern, in one or more individuals, that conveys
> > information.
>
> Currently, we have 'Proposition' as a direct subclass of
> 'Abstract' in the
> merged ontology. However, as Pat Hayes has pointed out, it
> is likely that
> the composite notion of 'ContentBearingThing' will prove to
> be more useful.
> In any case, axioms about these notions have yet to be written.
MW: I don't think proposition is the same as information pattern, unless you
think your DNA is a proposition.
>
> >
> > Class of Class
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > have only other classes as members.
> >
> > Number
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > class that are real, imaginary, or integer numbers.
>
> This is covered in the "Number Hierarchy" section of the
> merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Class of Relation
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > class that are classes of relation.
>
> This is covered in another new, provisional section of the
> merged ontology
> entitled "Relation Types".
>
> >
> > Specialisation
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > relations that indicate all the members of one class are
> > members of another class.
>
> It seems to me there is only one relation in this class, viz.
> what goes by
> the name of 'subclass-of' in the merged ontology.
MW: Yes, plus its defining axiom.
>
> >
> > Unit of Measure Mapping of Property to Number Space
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > relations that indicate that objects that a property maps to
> > a particular number according to a particular unit of measure
> > mapping.
>
> How does this differ from your category of "Quantifiable
> Property" described
> above?
MW: The quantifiable property is e.g. a particular degree of hotness. This
might have a mapping to the real number 20.1 using the Celsius mapping form
temperature to the number range (-271 - infinity).
>
> >
> > Class of Representation
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > relations that indicate that a thing is represented by an
> > information pattern.
>
> If you mean the relation between a piece of content and a
> physical object
> that embodies this content, then I agree that this is an
> important relation.
> We currently have the concept of 'ContentBearingObject' in the merged
> ontology, but we should also, I think, define a predicate
> that relates such
> an object to the chunk of information that it represents.
MW: This is the link to what is represented. The object that bears the
information is simply a member of the class.
>
> >
> > Identification
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > representation that indicates that an information pattern
> > stands for a thing.
>
> I guess what you're calling "Identification" is what
> philosophers refer to
> as the problem of reference, viz. how is it possible for a
> proper name or a
> definite description to designate the unique thing for which
> it stands?
MW: As in the label "Matthew West" stands for the person writing this note.
> Although we may want to incorporate something like the
> definite description
> operator into SUO-KIF and we probably want a predicate that relates a
> 'ContentBearingObject' to something referenced by that
> object, I'm not sure
> that there's anything else from the field of reference in
> philosophy that
> deserves a spot in our eventual SUO. Do you have other
> things in mind?
MW: That's the guts of it.
>
> >
> > Definition
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > representation that indicates that a thing must conform to
> > the information pattern.
> >
> > Description
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes of
> > representation that indicates that an information pattern
> > describes.
> >
> > Relation
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all classes that
> > have tuples as members.
> >
> > Classification
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations
> > that indicate a thing is a member of a class.
>
> I would arge that "Definition", "Description", "Relation", and
> "Classification" should not occupy their own respective places in the
> ontology, since each subject area will have its own set of
> definitions,
> descriptions, relations, and classifications.
MW: I think you are talking about instances of the concepts above.
>
> >
> > Cause and Effect
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations
> > that indicate that an activity causes an event.
>
> This is another gap in the merged ontology. I'm hoping that
> we can cover
> the subjects of change and causation in the same section of
> the ontology.
>
> >
> > Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations
> > that indicate that one individual is a part of another.
>
> This is covered in the "Mereotopological Definitions/Axioms"
> section of the
> merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Fusion Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that the whole is precisely the sum
> > of the parts.
> >
> > Arrangement Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that the parts are arranged, but not
> > necessarily touching, in order to a create a whole that is
> > more than the sum of the parts.
> >
> > Assembly Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that the parts are assembled in a way
> > that leaves them touching to make a whole. The nature of an
> > assembly relation is that assembly and disassembly is simple
> > and non-destructive. E.g. the assembly of a spark plug as
> > part of an engine.
> >
> > Feature Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that the part is contiguous with the
> > whole. Feature whole-part is not necessarily separable, and
> > if separated, it cannot necessarily be easily reassembled.
> >
> > Temporal Whole-Part
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that the part is all of the spatial
> > dimensions of the whole, but only a temporal part of it.
>
>
> We currently have concepts in the merged ontology to cover
> the various ways
> in which an object may be composed out of its parts, e.g.
> 'ContinuousObject', 'CorpuscularObject', 'OrganicObject', and
> 'Assembly'.
> These are all high-level notions that are defined in the
> "General Classes"
> section of the merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Participation in Activity
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that a state of a whole individual
> > is a participant in an activity.
>
> I'm not sure how this category differs from your earlier
> category of "Role".
MW: This is what links a state that plays a role, to the activity it is part
of. The role is the class the state is a member of.
>
> >
> > Temporal Bounding of State
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations that indicate that a temporal boundary bounds a
> > state.
>
> Wouldn't this class just consist of two functions, one from a
> state to the
> point in time at which it comes into being and one from a
> state to the point
> in time at which it ceases to exist. If so, I can formally
> specify these
> functions and add them to the merged ontology.
MW: That sounds like one way to represent it, but I don't think that is how
I would do it in KIF.
>
> >
> > Containment of Individual
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all whole-part
> > relations where the part is contained by the whole.
>
> Well, every mereological relation involves a notion of
> containment, in some
> sense of containment. How does this category differ from the earlier
> "Part-Whole" categories?
MW: It is the difference between a chair being in a room, and a spark plug
being part of an engine.
>
> >
> > Connection
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations that
> > indicate that one individual is connected to another
> > individual.
>
> In the merged ontology we have the predicate 'connected' and
> the class of
> 'SelfConnectedObject'. Both of these are covered in the
> "Mereotopological
> Definitions/Axioms" section of the merged ontology.
>
> >
> > Temporal Sequence
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations that
> > indicate that one individual (i.e. its whole spatio-temporal
> > extent) precedes another.
>
> We do have a calculus of time intervals and their relations
> in the "Temporal
> Definitions/Axioms" section of the merged ontology, and I
> think we could
> reuse this calculus to talk about the temporal relations
> between individuals
> if we defined a function that maps individuals to the time
> interval during
> which they exist, e.g. as follows:
>
> (instance-of TimeIntervalAbstractionFn UnaryFunction)
> (nth-domain TimeIntervalAbstractionFn 1 Object)
> (range TimeIntervalAbstractionFn TimeInterval)
>
> >
> > Involvement in Activity
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all relations that
> > indicate that a thing is involved in an activity. The
> > difference between involvement and participation is that the
> > involved object is a class or not contemporaneous with the
> > activity, e.g. a discussion today about World War II.
>
> I wonder if all cases of what you are calling "Involvement"
> could be covered
> by two predicates, viz. one linking a ContentBearingObject
> with a class that
> describes a topic of the object and one linking a
> ContentBearingObject with
> a particular object that is a referent of the object.
MW: I'm not sure what you mean here by ContentBearingObject unless it is
information. In which case not all things that are involved in activities
are information.
>
> >
> > Set
> >
> > Contains axioms and relations that apply to all mathematically
> > defined sets.
>
> This is covered in the new and provisional "Set Theory" section of the
> merged ontology.
>
> >
> > o-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> > ---o
> >
> > Regards
> > Matthew
> > ============================================
> > Matthew West
> > Operations & Asset Management
> > Shell Services International
> > H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> > Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> > Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> > http://www.shellservices.com/
> > ============================================
> >
>
>