RE: SUO: A common SUO document to focus on -- RE: Focus and Volume
Philip,
We may have different understandings for what counts as "formal". For
example, it appears to me that a human must read the English definitions to
understand what each term means. Robert has supplied axioms in his
explanatory text, but there is no structural requirement that that be done.
As examples, Ian Niles has merged Robert's ontology with his "merged
ontology". Each of the axioms is shown in a browser that requires
statements in a formal language (although one can put comments in English
on terms as well). If you look at
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Entity&caseSensitive=on&skb=Merge>
you'll see one of Robert's axioms:
(=>
(instance-of ?x Entity)
(not
(and
(instance-of ?x Class)
(instance-of ?x Set))))
Each term is hyperlinked so you can find the formal, logical definition of
Class, Set, instance-of etc. Most importantly, because the definitions are
in a formal computable language, an automated inference engine can work
with these definitions without human assistance. This is a critical aspect
of the ontology, and part of our charter (see the phrase "...automated
inferencing..." from the scope and purpose).
Adam
At 07:51 AM 5/14/2001 -0400, Philip Jackson wrote:
>Adam,
>
> > As a dictionary, quickbase looks quite useful. I'm unclear
> > though as to how it might be suitable for development of the
> > formal ontology itself. Could you elaborate?
>
>Thanks for your question. Please consider some of the definitions provided
>by Robert Kent at:
>
>https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk?act=q&qid=1
>
>Robert has provided formal definitions for some elements of his IFF
>ontology. These definitions include formulae, explanations, commentary,
>links to further information, etc. The elements of IFF are specified as
>belonging to ontology namespaces, which are defined and interrelated using
>the SUO "Ontology Modules" database.
>
>IFF itself is specified as an "ontology workspace", which is a name for an
>overall ontology effort, within which terms are being defined. For example,
>"Merged Ontology" could be an ontology workspace.
>
>Users may define namespaces as they wish, or not use the namespace feature
>if they prefer. Users may develop their own notations to indicate that a
>namespace occurs within a hierarchy of namespaces, or that an ontological
>term is defined within a namespace.
>
>Likewise, users may develop their own notations to define axioms for a term,
>and different notations could be used for different ontology efforts /
>workspaces.
>
>Because the database is open for access, and web-enabled, it should support
>collaboration by people working together to develop a formal ontology. Each
>workspace in the database is effectively a common document for people
>working on development of an ontology.
>
>Even so, the SUO Dictionary is a very new effort -- Perhaps as a common
>framework for developing an ontology it is incomplete or imperfect in some
>respects. I'd appreciate any feedback, comments, questions, suggestions,
>that you or others may have. Quite possibly it can be improved in some way,
>or maybe it is destined for failure because of some fundamental flaw that
>I've overlooked -- either way, the sooner I learn this, the better.
>
>Phil Jackson
>
>===================================
> >
> > At 09:02 AM 5/12/2001 -0400, Philip Jackson wrote:
> >
> > >Jim,
> > >
> > > > These items will probably cut down on the volume, but
> > without one or
> > > > more documents to focus on, we won't be making much progress.
> > > >
> > >
> > >I agree, and would like to note that we now have a web-enabled
> > framework for
> > >developing a common, documented definition of a standard upper ontology,
> > >with examples of its use provided by Robert Kent. It's at
> > >
> > >https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk
> > >
> > >Perhaps to make clear that it is intended to be used for this purpose, I
> > >should rename it something like "SUO Common Ontology Development
> > Framework",
> > >insted of "SUO Dictionary" (?) -- Readers may still think it is just a
> > >glossary, to be developed and used as an appendix or
> > afterthought -- rather,
> > >I hope that SUO members will find it a useful tool in the
> > development of SUO
> > >itself. It can support collaboration in development of one or
> > more ontology
> > >efforts, i.e. "merged ontology", "4D", "IFF", etc.
> > >
> > >Phil Jackson
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >"Philosophy cannot become scientifically healthy without an immense
> > >technical vocabulary. We can hardly imagine our great-grandsons
> > turning over
> > >the leaves of this dictionary without amusement over the paucity of words
> > >with which their grandsires attempted to handle metaphysics and
> > logic. Long
> > >before that day, it will have become indispensably requisite,
> > too, that each
> > >of these terms should be confined to a single meaning which,
> > however broad,
> > >must be free from all vagueness. This will involve a revolution in
> > >terminology; for in its present condition a philosophical thought of any
> > >precision can seldom be expressed without lengthy explanations." - CSP,
> > >Collected Papers 8:169
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571