RE: SUO: RE: RE: The Story So Far
Doug,
In an earlier note you said you had read my book carefully. So I am a bit
surprised at your comments.
Also I assume you did not understand the irony implicit in my comment 'Hayes
rhetorical mode' ... but anyway....
One of the themes of my book and common in discussions on 'orality and
literacy' is that as information technology gets more sophisticated and we
have more information to manage we need (and can afford) more sophisticated
conceptual structures.
One common example cited in the literature is from Aristotle and the dawn of
literacy. Before Aristotle the Greeks made no real distinction between the
metaphorical and literal (this seems to be common, and understandable, in
oral cultures). Aristotle took an earlier writer, Empodocles, to task for
offering the statement that sea water must be the sweat of the earth because
is was salty along with other literal statements.
Walter Ong makes the suggestion that all the fuss about transubstantiation
was due to a similar lack of cultural sensitivity to differences in
accuracy.
You wrote:
In any event, natural language and various practical classification schemes
have been the way useful commercial and industrial work have always been
conducted.
This is only partly true, and misleading - as I believe others and I have
pointed out.
Commercial and industrial work is normally specified in either special
non-natural (unnatural?) legal languages or other non-natural mechanisms
(accounts, engineering drawings, etc.) The SWIFT messages that banks use to
talk to one another are in no sense natural languages. This is one of the
interesting features of commercial and industrial work - and what
differentiates it from pre-commercial/industrial work.
And it is not just commercial work. As I have noted before on this list, one
of the features of the scientific revolution (in England at least) was 1) a
deep suspicion of natural languages, 2) a preference for the non-natural
language of mathematics and 3) failed attempts at producing a universal
structured language without the faults of natural language. [Note also there
was also a fundamental shift in IT at the time - from handwriting to
printing.]
I am also not sure how far back your 'always' (above) stretches. I think
most of the classification schemes we use now in science started in the 17th
Century and business in the 19th - though I would be interested in more
information on this topic.
The problem we face is that when we try and use the schema produced by
'practical classification' in computer systems of any reasonable size we
start getting problems of inaccuracy - or lack of fit. For example, I am at
the moment involved in working on a banking ontology. We have taken lots of
different 'practical classifications in this area and found them
incompatible, incomplete and unclear. When we try to harmonise them we find
we need a degree of accuracy greater than that used by the compliers of
them. These 'practical' classifications are fine for systems, which involve
humans in their operation and so allow for interpretation, adjustment and
correction. The purpose of the ontology is to minimize the need for this
human intervention.
Note - this is not to say that these classifications do not make a good
starting point - again a fundamental point made repeated in my book. You
seem to have mis-interpreted me on this point. The issue is not whether one
starts with the classifications, which seems to me clear, but what we do
with them. If the answer is nothing, then I stand by what I said, one is
unlikely to add much that is of practical use.
When we first exchanged emails on this list I had a look at your work at the
pointers you gave me. It seems to me (from only a brief look) that your work
is in a different area, but related area, one of trying to make some sense
of an enterprise to the people working in it - i.e. a rough oral degree of
accuracy, that allows for human intervention. The problems I am discussing
come when these ideas are formalized and taken to their logical extremes. It
may well be that you are used to working on different problems.
If you regard ontologies as merely 'refining' natural language and current
classification schemes, then I think you have a different idea of what
ontologies are going to do from a number of members of this list, including
me. It seems to me that they are more likely to be a 'disruptive' technology
that leads to significant changes in the way we classify and conceptualize
the world. And this, for me at least, makes them more interesting.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Douglas McDavid
Sent: 07 March 2001 14:41
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: RE: The Story So Far
Chris --
Ian Niles wrote:
> > A natural language and subject categorization
> > scheme don't embody a single view about the way the world is; they
provide a
> > representational framework for stating and locating views about the
world.
You replied:
> Surely the whole point is that they do NOT provide a sufficiently
> accurate/formal/etc. representational framework. The problems we are
talking
> about arise when we start using a sufficiently accurate/formal/etc.
> representational framework. To slip into a Hayes rhetorical mode for a
> moment - if you are taking these as your examples, you have little or no
> idea of the kinds of tasks that need to be done to produce something
useful
> for commercial/industrial systems.
My thought:
I would truly like to understand what you mean by "useful"? I wonder how
you think commerce has been conducted, and economies of the world have
proceeded in the centuries before you, and the particular cleavings of the
world that you are so enamored of, appeared on the scene?
The rhetorical mode that you adopted is very unfortunate for the point
you are trying to make. The kind of rhetoric that states one or another
of the colleagues here have "little or no idea" about something or other
is extreme and polarizing, and from my perspective meant to be
divisive.
In any event, natural language and various practical classification schemes
have been the way useful commercial and industrial work have always been
conducted. I came to this list as a step in a long career of trying to
refine these
schemes and usages to make them more practical and useful in a world
that is increasingly permeated and dependent on interoperating software
mediations of human communication. In recent exchanges I am learning that
this endeavor (IEEE SUO) was conceived by folks who have a different
concern.
I am still trying to really understand what that motivating concern is, and
whether
it has any relevance to the work I am trying to do. The words "useful
commercial/industrial systems" give me hope for commonality. The rejection
of all of natural language and existing classification schemes pretty
effectively
snuffs that glimmer of hope.
Doug McDavid
Certified Executive Consultant
Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
Professional Development - BIS, Americas
Member of IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600