Re: SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
Adam, Pat, et al.,
AP> It would be incorrect to place me at the opposite end of the spectrum
> from Doug. I'd summarize his position as that an upper ontology is
> essential and relevant but that there are many "good enough" upper
> ontologies that one might construct and all would be equally useful. The
> point is to pick one (or generate one) and move on, as agonizing over the
> "one true ontology" is pointless. I agree with Doug whole-heartedly.
There is certainly a wide range of opinions, but I don't think that
a linear spectrum is adequate for representing them. I'll describe the
positions of a few of the darts on the board:
1. Doug L. doesn't think the top level is very important, and I agree
with him: his top level isn't important. But that is merely
because his top-level categories are so weakly specified that
there is very little to inherit from them.
2. I have a sample top level in my KR book, which is also weakly
axiomatized. However, that is a temporary situation that I hope
to remedy with future R & D. I believe that a well designed
top level should contain enough significant axioms that it would
reduce the complexity and clarify the relationships among the vast
numbers of lower-level categories.
3. Some of the other people who contribute to this list also have
some strong ideas about what belongs at the top level, but we have
not yet reached a consensus about those ideas. Until we do, I
believe that it is premature to endorse any proposed top level
as an agreed upon working document.
4. My concerns about the current merged ontology can be deduced from
my points #1, #2, and #3 above: there isn't enough inheritance
in it to make it any more relevant (and perhaps less so) than
Lenat's; although I am pleased that Ian Niles has included my
top level in the merged ontology, I still believe that more work
is needed to relate it to the lower levels (I do some of that in
my KR book, and I am working on more, especially in my causality
boook (forthcoming)); and I do believe that we need more discussion
about fundamentals, about which there are still major discrepancies.
I disagree that we can just "pick one" as Adam has suggested. As long
as the top level is weakly integrated with the rest, as it is in Lenat's
ontology, it doesn't matter very much. But if we had a good one, it
would be much more strongly integrated.
Bottom line: There may be more than one "good" top level, but there are
surely an infinite number of "very bad" top levels. If we just pick one,
the odds of picking a good one are against us.
John Sowa