Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Doug,
I don't follow you. What portion of that text indicates a goal of
separate modules for the *upper ontology*? That quote merely says that
other ontologies which are domain specific can be built off of the SUO.
Adam
At 08:18 PM 3/10/2001 -0700, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>Adam --
>
>The reverse position is indicated by the following wording from the
>Scope and Purpose document:
>
>http://suo.ieee.org/scopeAndPurpose.html
>
>"An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract
>and
>philosophical, and therefore are general enough to address (at a high
>level) a
>broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific to given domains will not be
>included; however, this standard will provide a structure and a set of
>general
>concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial,
>engineering, etc.)
>could be constructed."
>
>
>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
>
>
>Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>@ieee.org on 03/10/2001 04:13:35 PM
>
>Please respond to Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>
>Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>
>
>To: Nicola Guarino <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>,
> <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>cc:
>Subject: Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
>
>
>
>
>Nicola,
> Neither the approach of a single common ontology, or a catalog of
>related ontologies has been proven to be the right approach, so either or
>both may turn out to be valid. However, I would say that a single common
>ontology, to the degree practical, is the goal of this group, and has been
>voted on when the PAR was approved. I have found that there can be
>disagreement on wording that I thought was very clear, but the sections
>that seem to indicate this are (with my emphasis by bracketing with '*'s):
>
>"This standard will specify *an* upper ontology that will enable
>computers..."
>
>"The SUO will play the role of a neutral interchange format whereby owners
>of existing applications will be able to map existing data elements just
>*once to a common ontology*."
>
>The group is of course free to change its mind...
>
>I would say that Cyc falls somewhere in the middle on this issue and I
>suspect that will be the result for the SUO as well - a largely common
>ontology with a context mechanism that allows for a few different, although
>compatible, approaches in limited areas.
>
>Adam
>
>At 11:15 PM 3/10/2001 +0100, Nicola Guarino wrote:
>
> >Dear Matthew,
> >
> > I am sorry not having been able to enter this discussion so far,
> > but I totally agree with your point. Especially in this phase, clarifying
> > the different views and relating them each other is much more important
> > than attempting at a unifying ontology. In the future, a library of
> > reference ontologies (or a reference ontology library?) can grow out of
> > this effort. I don't exclude that, ultimately, one single ontology will
> > attract most of the consensus, but this can only be proved by monitoring
> > actual use, not on the basis of a priori arguments.
> >
> > In any case, I believe that the purpose of our effort is not to
> > force people (and computers) to think in the same way, but rather to be
> > clear about the meaning and the implications of what they think. Suppose
> > we have a well-designed ontology library, where each module is adequately
> > axiomatized, and a number of primitives are in common, so that mappings
> > and comparisons can be made among the different axiomatizations. Now
> > suppose that application 1 commits to reference ontology RO7, and
> > application 2 to RO2: the utility of this (wrt to the absence of a
> > reference ontology library) is in the fact that i) RO7 and RO2 are
> > "certified" as reflecting the view of a group of people of a certain
> > minimal size, with certain applications in mind, who have developed these
> > ontologies by adopting a controlled methodology; ii) the formalization of
> > RO7 and RO2 allows to establish (partial) mappings and understanding the
> > differences. This is a concrete step towards integration.
> >
> > Notice that a reference ontology library would be different from
> > a simple repository of ontologies (like for instance the one maintained
> > on the Stanford Ontology Server) inofar each SUO module would be
> > "certified" for soundness, clarity, existence of a suitable number of
> > potential applications, existence of a certain level of common agreement,
> > and existence of (partial) formal links with other modules.
> >
> > I believe that the level of agreement on this issue monolithic
> > vs. non-monolithic approach is suitable to be checked by means a vote.
> > As I have noted in the past, a vote on issues like this one makes much
> > more sense, at this stage, than a vote on an initial "merged" ontology.
> > So I ask James to call for a vote on this. According to my notes, besides
> > the people mentioned by Matthew, also Chris Menzel, Chris Welty, Robert
> > Kent, Frederick Chase, and Philip Jackson have expressed their preference
> > for a non-monolithic approach.
> >
> > I hope this helps. I'll continue digesting the (many dozens)
> > unopened messages now...
> >
> >At 10:09 AM +0100 6/3/01, West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >Nicola Guarino
> >National Research Council phone: +39 O49 8295751
> >LADSEB-CNR fax: +39 O49 8295763
> >Corso Stati Uniti, 4 email: Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it
> >I-35127 Padova
> >Italy
> >
> >http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/ontology.html
> >(***updated 22/2/2001 ***)
>
>-----------------
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571
>
>
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571