RE: RE: SUO: RE: First piece of 4D ontology
Dear Robert,
See comments below.
Regards
Matthew
============================================================
Matthew West - Principal Consultant
Operations & Asset Management, Shell Services International
Shell Visiting Professor
The Keyworth Institute, Leeds University
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
http://www.shellservices.com/
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
============================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meersman Robert [mailto:meersman@vub.ac.be]
> Sent: 11 March 2001 19:14
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: re:RE: SUO: RE: First piece of 4D ontology
>
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:41:50 +0100 West, Matthew MR
> SSI-GREA-UK <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dear Robert,
>
> ### Matthew, reply below--
>
> --Robert Meersman
>
> >
> >> ### Ian, Matthew,
> >>
> >> ### am traveling in US so replies may be a bit slower. I had
> >> also noticed the relationship between in Matthew's axioms #3
> >> and #4 but in fact, why does the comment of #3 talk about
> >> classes while the code is expressed using collection? Is that
> >> accidental or intentional.
> >
> >MW: Just an editiing accident. I'm having troubles picking
> and using terms
> >consistently for the meanings I have.
> >
> >> Similarly, is "member of" the same
> >> as "is a"?
> >
> >MW: Well I don't like to use "is a" because it can be
> ambiguous in natural
> >language, being commonly used both for subclass-of and member-of.
>
> ### The reason I asked is that you used it in the comments of
> your axioms #1 and #3.
MW: I have tried to give 3 definitions for each axiom:
1. KIF
2. More or less direct translation of the KIF into English, retaining use of
variables.
3. following the i.e. an informal definition in everyday English. I have
only used "is a" in these last definitions. The meaning should be
interpreted from the more formal statements if you have any doubt. I expect
to use "is a" for "is a member of" and "is a type of" for "is a subclass of"
in the informal definitions.
>
> >>
> >> ### BTW these 4 axioms don't tell me a whole lot... not to
> >> mention the serious agreement one needs about the "exists"
> >> predicate and the implicit membership/is_a semantics. I
> >> wonder how to use them.
> >
> >MW: Please elaborate on the "serious agreement" that is needed.
>
> ### You and others use KIF to specify axioms, rather than an
> "accepted" syntax such as mathematics ("accepted" = "universally"
> semantically agreed, at least since Hilbert and consorts --and
> pardon the many quotes) in which, incidentally, the 4 axioms could
> be written much more concisely. Clearly this is done with a certain
> form of future computer processing in mind, i.e. interpretation by
> a program for purposes of storage, validation, reasoning, ... by
> computers. This requires a formal definition of the syntax used --in
> the case at hand this likely involves an (the!) ontology itself we
> are trying to define. So, in order to avoid infinite regress, we
> have no alternative but to axiomatically define (= agree on) the
> basic predicates such as "exists ?x ?y". E.g. if this merely involves
> finite sets, one "only" has to agree on the definition of the
> extension
> of ?x and on the lookup of ?y in this extension --but one
> assumes there
> is more at play here, otherwise the whole SUO becomes an exercise
> in triviality. I believe thick volumes of logic have been written on
> this subject of "exists" alone (cfr. the Intuitionists, ...) so a
> proper initial agreement seems required. Of course I don't doubt that
> [the interpreter for] KIF++ has/will "prescribe" this; my point is
> that it will be required at every step and needs to be performed
> explicitly.
MW: Sounds like this question should be redirected to those who take
responsibility for KIF.
>
> ### Hope this helps for the time being. Apologies should replies
> from me be even slower in the coming days, will be on the road
>
> >
> >> Is there more to come?
> >
> >MW: Well the title does say "First piece", so I hope so, as
> time permits.
> >>
> >> --Robert Meersman
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Matthew,
> >> >
> >> > Please see my comments below.
> >> >
> >> >-Ian
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> >> >> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:22 AM
> >> >> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> >> >> Subject: First piece of 4D ontology
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >> >>
> >> >> Please find below a first piece of a 4D ontology.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd like to thank Pat Hayes for reviewing some early drafts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Comment text is of two types:
> >> >> 1. Translations into English of the KIF below. I assume that
> >> >> eventually automatic translation from KIF into e.g. ACE
> >> >> will be possible for human interaction.
> >> >> 2. Structuring information, e.g. Subject Area, Theory,
> >> Statement No.
> >> >> These are things that I think we need to support engineering
> >> >> an ontology (vs. saying what we mean) which I hope will be
> >> >> supported by KIF before long.
> >> >>
> >> >> Comments are welcomed.
> >> >>
> >> >> ; Subject Area: Thing
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; theory: individual and collection
> >> >> ; uses:
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; #1:
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; For all X, X is a thing.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; i.e. that which everything is a member of.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; Note 1: In First Order Logic there is no need to make any
> >> >> declaration,
> >> >> ; (forall ?x ...) is sufficient.
> >> >> ; Note 2: This means that all collections will be a
> >> subclass of thing.
> >> >
> >> >This axiom also appears in the merged ontology. There it
> >> has the following
> >> >form: (forall (?X) (instance-of ?X Entity))
> >> >
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; #2:
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; for all X, if there exists a Y and Y is a member of X,
> >> then X is a
> >> >> ; member of collection.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; i.e. any thing that has a member is a collection.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> (forall ?x
> >> >> (=> (exists ?y
> >> >> (?x ?y)
> >> >> )
> >> >> (collection ?x)
> >> >> )
> >> >> )
> >> >> ; Note: This (?x ?y) is not valid SUO-KIF today, but I
> >> understand it
> >> >> ; will be in the near future.
> >> >
> >> >You could express (?x ?y) as (instance-of ?y ?x), which is
> >> syntactically
> >> >well-formed SUO-KIF. However, it is also not a first-order
> >> sentence.
> >> >
> >> >I'm wondering what you mean by "collection" in your axiom.
> >> I thought we
> >> >were using this term to denote things like wolf packs,
> >> football teams, etc.,
> >> >which are set-like, in that they have members, but, unlike
> >> sets, they have a
> >> >spatio-temporal location. However, if this is what you
> >> mean, then you
> >> >exclude sets and classes, which have members but are not
> >> collections in the
> >> >sense just explained.
> >> >
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; #3:
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; For all X, X is an individual, or X is a class.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; i.e. everything is either an individual or a class
> >> >> ;
> >> >> (forall ?x
> >> >> (or (individual ?x)
> >> >> (collection ?x)
> >> >> )
> >> >> )
> >> >
> >> >Note that axiom #3 is redundant, since it is logically
> >> entailed by axiom #4.
> >> >
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; #4:
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; For all X, if X is a member of collection then X is not a
> >> >> ; member of individual and vice versa.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; i.e. any thing that is not a collection is an individual, and
> >> >> ; vice-versa.
> >> >> ;
> >> >> (forall ?x
> >> >> (<=> (collection ?x)
> >> >> (not (individual ?x))
> >> >> )
> >> >> )
> >> >
> >> >My earlier comment about "collection" applies here as well,
> >> since this axiom
> >> >appears to rule out sets and classes.
> >> >
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; end theory
> >> >> ;
> >> >> ; end subject area
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Matthew
> >> >> ============================================================
> >> >> Matthew West
> >> >> Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
> >> >> Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
> >> >>
> >> >> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> >> >> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.shellservices.com/
> >> >> http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> >> >> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >> >> ============================================================
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Regards
> > Matthew
> >============================================================
> >Matthew West
> >Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
> >Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
> >
> >H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> >Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> >
> >http://www.shellservices.com/
> >http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> >http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >============================================================
> >
> >
>
>