SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
Yang,
Any specific suggestions you have about how to make the current
merged ontology easier to survey and use would be greatly appreciated.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang Yun [mailto:yangyun@metacrawler.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:50 AM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>
>