SUO: RE: The Story So Far
Matthew,
I think your proposal of the development of a number of ontologies - outline
below - is a sensible suggestion. One that is most likely to lead to a
positive result in the least possible time.
I think this was what was envisaged by Jim when he noted that there could be
several documents submitted as working papers.
I suggest that if we follow this approach, we change the name of Ian Niles'
paper from the misleading title 'Merged Ontology' (I believe a number of
other people have also made this suggestion.)
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of West, Matthew MR
SSI-GREA-UK
Sent: 06 March 2001 10:09
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/
=============================================