SUO: RE: RE: The Story So Far
Matthew & Ian,
. Further comments interspersed, prefaced "GH2> ".
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: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:43 AM
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: RE: The Story So Far
Matthew,
See my comments below.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:09 AM
> 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.
This is just an aside, but could you list these world views? I think
philosophers everywhere would rejoice if their diverse and protracted
debates could be distilled into 4 or 5 statements.
GH2> Agreed
> 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.
GH2> I feel I am one of Ian's supporters who does NOT believe this.
OK, but this sounds like an untenable approach only if you assume that the
sources that I'm trying to merge into a single ontology overlap to a large
extent with the metaphysical and epistemological theories that I have argued
are irrelevant to what we're trying to do here. The formal ontologies
relating to numbers, measures, organisms, agents, etc. that have been
incorporated into the merged ontology do not, from what I can see, hinge on
debates about nominalism versus realism or about the source and
justification of our concepts or etc.
GH2> Agreed.
> 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.
I think everything here hinges on your notion of "World Viewpoints". If, by
this, you mean formal ontologies relating to mereology, biological
categories, set theory, etc., then I agree that we are well served by trying
to understand them and relate them to each other (and incorporate them into
a merged ontology). Furthermore, I agree that there are some deep
theoretical issues that we have to work through, e.g. the representation of
time. If these latter issues prevent us from developing a single,
monolithic ontology, then I think we should get as clear as possible about
the different viewpoints in the debate and then formalize and package these
different viewpoints in independent modules. It would be unfortunate if we
didn't end up with a single, overarching, and consistent conceptual schema,
but perhaps this goal is unattainable. If it is unattainable, then I think
the best we can do is to make clear the various representational choices and
bundle them up in consistent and independent packages.
GH2> sounds to me like you're effectively meaning the same thing, and
quibbling over the words to say it.
> 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.
First of all, the ontology isn't going to be created single-handedly by me.
The merged ontology is the product of a range of formal ontologies, and it
will be refined on the basis of comments and criticisms from the SUO WG.
GH> Well said.
Second, I don't agree that this four-fold set of choices exhausts the range
of possibilities, because I don't see that we're trying to get straight
about "how the world is". As I see it, we're trying to create a conceptual
schema that should, insofaras possible, support every conceptual model that
anyone would ever want to develop. In other words, we're not trying to
stake claims on the nature of the world; we're essentially trying to develop
the semantic content of a language which can express such claims (and many
other claims as well). To ask after the "World Viewpoint" of an ontology
construed in this way would be analogous to asking after the "World
Viewpoint" that informs the English language or the Library of Congress
system of subject categories. 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. I
would argue that we should regard our upper-level ontology in a similar
manner.
GH> Agreed.
> 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).
You're going to lose the philosophers here. No nominalist philosopher is
going to admit that Platonic realism is valid within any range. No idealist
philosopher would allow that a perceiver-independent notion of matter or
substance is tenable. No sceptical philosopher is ever going to allow that
we have any knowledge of anything. Really, I think you're vastly
underestimating the depth and scope of disagreement among philosophers, even
among analytic philosophers (who all subscribe to the same logico-linguistic
orientation).
GH> Actually, I see your comment about: "trying to create a conceptual
schema that should, insofaras possible, support every conceptual model that
anyone would ever want to develop. In other words, we're not trying to
stake claims on the nature of the world; we're essentially trying to develop
the semantic content of a language which can express such claims" covers
this adequately.
> - 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.
I would embrace an approach that followed these last four steps, if by
"viewpoint" you mean a set of concepts or axioms that
(i.) are needed to represent something that we would conceivably want to
express in the context of an information system and
(ii.) are incompatible with one another or the overarching system of
categories.
GH> Agreed.
> 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/
> =============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:45 PM
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: 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 else's 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.
GH2> Basically my thought is to treat things like this the way we do in
ordinary situations. Generally we treat cars, houses, people as continuants.
Every so often we change mindset to register how they have changed, worn
out, etc., and need healing/maintenance or curing/repairs, etc.
> 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.
GH2> I was thinking along the lines of treating many things as constants
(continuants) being simpler than tracking their gradual changes.
>
> . 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/
> =============================================