SUO: RE: The Story So Far
Dear Graham,
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/
http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
=============================================
Also:
Shell Visiting Professor
The Keyworth Institute
The University of Leeds
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
=============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> Sent: 06 March 2001 10:30
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; Niles Teknowledge Ian (E-mail);
> Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: The Story So Far
>
>
> Hi Matthew,
> . I haven't followed the story close
> enough to know
> whether you are accurately portraying Ian.
MW: One reason for stating your perception of someone elses position is so
they can correct any miss-perception you have.
>
> . I like your recommended approach, and have been
> proposing
> the same basic principle for some time, too.
MW: Good, because I wasn't quite sure of your position.
>
> . I still get the impression that the 4-D vs 3-D + time
> incompatibility is an example of this sort of situation,
> albeit possibly a
> small one.
MW: Yes, actually (I think) it is one of the major ones, so if you
see it as small, then maybe we don't have such a hard road ahead.
> 4-D will be too complex and tedious for many
> situations, and so
> we probably need both approaches, even tho' they are inconsistent.
MW: That's an interesting perception. I thought so too, but my
experience is that it turns out to be simpler, once you have grasped
the basic principles, which in turn seem to be quite natural to
scientists and engineers, but not the same as how we often speak
about the world in everyday conversation.
>
> . I think we should let Ian speak for himself, though.
MW: Indeed I hope he will.
>
>
>
> Cheers Graham Horn
> National Data Standards Unit
> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
> ================================================
> Phone: 02.6244.1094
> Fax: 02.6244.1199
> Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:09 PM
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: The Story So Far
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> It occurs to me that some may be a little confused about what
> all the fuss
> is about. There has been a very lively discussion about how we should
> construct an SUO, with a large number of sub-plots, the
> result being that
> you could be forgiven for being confused about what the discussion is
> actually about.
>
> This at least is my version.
>
> There are a number (say about 4-5) of world views that are documented,
> either in natural language, or in a more formal form, with a number of
> possible variations on these.
>
> Ian and his supporters argue that because all philosophers do
> not agree on
> just one of these, we should ignore all of them, giving
> preference to a
> process that Ian might describe as pragmatic selection from
> various sources
> and merge.
>
> I, Pat Hayes, John Sowa, Chris Partridge, Nicola Guarino
> (please correct me
> if I am mistaken) and perhaps others would argue that we
> would be better
> served by understanding the existing World Viewpoints and
> relating them to
> each other.
>
> Discussion
>
> As far as I can see there are four possible outcomes to Ian's
> approach.
>
> 1. Ian solves the problem that previous philosophers have
> failed to solve
> and creates a single ontology that everyone agrees is how the
> world is.
>
> 2. Ian recreates one of the possibilities that are already
> known about.
>
> 3. Ian creates a new ontology with a different world
> viewpoint than those
> already existing, adding one more to the list that
> philosophers don't agree
> about.
>
> 4. Ian fails to create a consistent ontology.
>
> Let us consider these in turn:
>
> 1. Included for completeness only. I don't think Ian expects
> this outcome.
>
> 2. One of the two most likely outcomes, in which case it would be more
> efficient to do some homework and make an informed choice (or
> adopt the
> counter position above).
>
> 3. A remote possibility, and probably the least useful.
>
> 4. The most likely short term result, based on what I read and my own
> experience, getting to a consistent universal ontology from
> scratch takes
> some 5-10+ years work -- for those few who can claim some measure of
> success.
>
> The alternative approach:
>
> - Recognises that there are a (small) number of major world
> viewpoints that exist and are valid (within some range).
> - Tries to understand explicitly what are the elements that
> underpin those viewpoints and the applicable range.
> - Identifies key choices that are mutually exclusive.
> - Documents those viewpoints based on that understanding.
> - Enables interoperation between those viewpoints by
> mapping between them.
>
> We could of course pursue both of these options.
>
> Comments?
>
> 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/
> http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
> =============================================
> Also:
> Shell Visiting Professor
> The Keyworth Institute
> The University of Leeds
> http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> =============================================
>