Re: Re: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
I'd appreciate any way to make it easier to navigate through
this ontology. I don't use Lisp, and would request that a
neutral format like XML/MathML be used for interchange .
The current file is too big, and can be carved up into
several 'domains of imterest' , linked with hyperlinks.
Modularity is the only way to proceed here , even
Cyc uses micro-theories, IMPS uses 'little theories'
(http://imps.mcmaster.ca/theories/theory-library.html)
ISO Std 13568 Z uses schemas, XHTML uses modules, C++
uses classes and so on.
The real advantage is that a Subject Matter Expert for the
specific domain of interest can initiate and maintain the
work of defining how that domain communicates its work.
For example, a website just specifying what a dam on a river is:
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~brugg/specs.html
Its a division of labor effect as much as anything.
All I need in the structural ontology is a way to glue
theories together, and a minimum set of descriptors such
as Actor, State, Object and Interaction!!! Just a few v general
descriptors, plus a notion of refinement to iteratively take one to
the next layered level of detail.
I could write up these experiences as guidelines if it helps.
yy
---- Begin Original Message ----
From: "Frederick N. Chase" <fnc@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
...
I was trying to further affirm the notion that,
distasteful and complexifying though it may be,
it will be essential for us to provide a place for
theories, causal bubbles, axiomatizations, alternative courses,
views, domains of interest (DOIs), viewpoints, or whatever they be
termed
which offer some sort of isolation one from another.
(I recognize that some of these may be fundamentally different from
others.)
The kinds of DOIs I had in mind include the following examples,
though I'm not sure all all of these are suitable for an
IEEE SUO, or for a chunk that can be merged into an IEEE SUO.
Ia. The Euclid/Hilbert geometry including the uniqueness-of-parallels
postulate.
Ib. The Bolayi/Lobachevsky/Hilbert geometry which postulates that
through a point not on a line, there is more than one line parallel to
that line.
Of interest here is that these DOIs are variants with a large common
corpus,, including
"For any two different points, there is exactly one line containing
these points."
It probably isn't a good idea to
a) use a slew of separate ontology terms to create two versions of the
elements of this common corpus nor to
b) use a quantifier on all of the common corpus.
IIa. The law of the conservation of momentum in an inertial
(non-accelerated) frame of reference.
IIb. The lack of conervation of momentum stated with respect to a
non-inertial frame of reference.
IIIa. The current-but-classical biological/organism hierarchy of
Kingdom/Phylim/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species.
IIIb. A putative competing DOI based on genetic "distance".
For example, it may be that, in a genetic DOI, the notion that a
Fish
is a Gilled, Finned, lives-in-the-water subclass of cold-blooded
vertebrates
will need to be modified.
IVa. One reality.
IVb. An alternative reality.
I was not suggesting that
paraconsistent logic or
probabilistic reasoning or
non-demonstrative forms of inference be used.
(I've not read about them.)
I was rejecting the "Into the Sky"/"Into the Ground" dead-end
that Jon Awbrey and Chris Menzel describe.
Rejecting it in favor of some sort of hack involving an
isolation-of-consequences or scoping-of-names notion and
implicitly asking that anyone who has some idea of how to do this step
in and
give the idea additional legitimacy (if it deserves it).
-Fred Chase
---- End Original Message ----
-------------------------------------------------------
Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1 metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com