Re: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
>Pat --
>
>I'm going to rethread this, putting my original reply to John Sowa at the
>bottom,
>and some responses inserted within your reply to me.
>
> > That is a good question, and your point is well taken. But look where
> > it leaves us. We will need to write axioms which say that spatial
> > coordinate systems exist, without saying anything in particular about
> > any spatial coordinate system.
>
>Actually, the few statements I made were meant to imply that there are
>a lot of things we can say about coordinate systems. Some are very
>general, and would apply to all coordinate systems. Some are more
>particular, and would allow us to differentiate different kinds of
>coordinate systems.
>
>Many of those things that would be said in an upper ontology would
>have to do with point of view. This would articulate under what
>conditions a particular (type of) coordinate system would be
>appropriate.
>
>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.
Ah, OK. What you are talking about here is what one might call a
meta-ontology: a theory of ontologies, with information about their
strengths and weaknesses, what they are good for, how they relate to
one another, etc.. That is a noble ambition, but I don't think it is
what the SUO is trying to be. The SUO proposes to be a *single*
upper-level ontological framework which reconciles all these various
points of view into *one* classification heirarchy into which all
other ontologies can be fitted. Which is one reason why many of us
are very doubtful that it can be done.
> > How do we do that? What can be
> > usefully said about spatial coordinate systems in general, or about
> > the general concept of a spatial coordinate system? I do not mean to
> > imply that this task is impossible, but I do think it is considerably
> > harder than the task of describing one or two coordinate systems and
> > the mappings between them. At the very least, such a limited exercise
> > might be a very useful preliminary study before attempting to write
> > the mathematical masterpiece of generality required for a universal
> > theory of coordinate systems in the abstract. The basic
> > methodological point being that these 'upper' theories, if they are
> > to be nontrivial, are likely to be very difficult to get right. We
> > are trying to break the sound barrier before we know how to walk.
>
>Maybe I'm overly naive, but I didn't think I was proposing anything
>like a mathematical masterpiece.
Well a general theory of the concept of coordinate system seems like
it would need some pretty high-powered mathematics. I doubt if we
could do it in anything less than category theory.
>My view of the SUO is that it carves
>information spaces into useful areas of particularity.
If only it were that simple. Most of this information space hasnt
even been explored or properly surveyed, let alone carved up.
>I see it being used
>as an organizing and indexing mechanism that acts as a framework for myriad
>particular ontologies. I believe the world is ready for a huge new
>emphasis
>on the *meaning* within software-based information systems. We're only
>recently in this position, with the critical mass of computing power and
>interoperation among enterprises of all types now in place.
Sorry if Im one of the old cynical guys, but Ive been doing this
stuff for about 30 years now, as have many other people in AI, and it
doesnt seem that anything dramatic has changed. Moores law has been
going on for a while now, but that kind of advance doesnt make the
representational issues any easier. Ian is still talking about the
situation calculus (reference McCarthy 1961, or thereabouts), and
others are still getting hyped about modal logics (references from
mid-60s), so where are the new ideas coming from?
>I think that
>significant progress can be made on this program of meaning reconciliation
>in a matter of months, rather than decades.
Well, you may be right, but I think it will take some extraordinary
new idea. (Where's Einstein when you need him?)
> I have a sinking feeling that
>this puts my out of step with the most prolific members of this group, for
>whom some issues of fundamental point of view need to be resolved before
>any progress can be made. My hope is that we can deal with many issues
>without making particularistic commitments at the uppermost level.
How do you think we should start? (Genuine question, not rhetoric.)
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes