Re: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
Doug,
Just to clarify, I'm not so concerned with any particular form of logic
over another as long as we pick one so we're not confused by various
dialects. I'm also not advocating jumping prematurely (as I see it) to
formalization in place of discussion. I merely get the sense that a lot of
discussion is occurring which could be brought to a point of clarity more
efficiently if folks would state their positions in terms of specific
changes or additions to the merged ontology, in addition to stating their
concerns in English.
Adam
At 01:31 PM 3/4/2001 -0700, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>Adam --
>
>Actually, I think you may know that the operative part of my statement
>about
>representation was "or whatever". I've left a snippet of the original text
>to provide
>some context. It seems that a significant majority here are convinced that
>it just
>ain't ontology unless it's represented in a particular form of logic.
>
>It's not that I disagree with this, necessarily - it's more that I want to
>focus on content.
>In this respect, I hold a view that has been expressed by John and Jon, and
>I think others
>(who I hope I'm not misrepresenting) that formal representation is
>premature before
>clear understanding.
>
>I do believe that representation is ultimately important. For me, the
>design point of
>representation is accessibility and navigability. This is because I
>envision
>the SUO, and a large universe of ontologies, as a reference utility to
>resolve
>ambiguities and disjoint semantics among multiple applications. The main
>image
>I carry in my mind for SUO, and ontologies in general, is a database. But
>I wouldn't
>make database representation a prerequisite to making progress on issues of
>meaning.
>
>Doug
>
>
> > Douglas,
> > I'd like to agree heartily with your comment below about backing up
> > suggestions with axioms. I suspect it's a lot easier for people to
> > disagree about abstract concepts when using English to describe different
> > approaches. There's just too much room for ambiguity and
> > misunderstanding. If folks who are suggesting alternate approaches could
> > axiomatize those approaches, I suspect we could either reach agreement
>more
> > quickly, or at the very least, define precisely where differences of
> > opinion lie. The latter, in and of itself, would be a very valuable
> > scientific result.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > >
> > >My expectation coming into this group was that an SUO would be used
> > >to express these kinds of issues. In general I would like to see us
> > >spending less time trying to convince each other of some particular
> > >point of view, and more time working on how to reconcile multiple
> > >points of view, through axioms (or whatever representation) that
> > >articulate what is common, what needs to be differentiated, and for
> > >what purpose.
> > >
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571