RE: ONT RE: Ontology case study
Adam,
This is old ground and I suspect everyone is becoming bored by the
discussion - so I will just answer the point below.
You wrote: "If I were to say to Nicola for example that his upper ontology
was "not
particularly well regimented" would that be a useful comment? Surely he
would expect me to justify it, and explain which terms were out of place
and how specifically I would suggest to reorganize it. I went to Casati
and Varzi and said the mereology they propose in Parts and Places was bad,
they would expect me to provide a specific example that shows a problem,
and what axioms that I would suggest changing to fix it."
I do regularly say to Nicola that given a particular position he wants to
take he needs to regiment another area (e.g. taking a strict substance-event
distinction leads to a need to explain how participation works). He often
agrees and explains what strategy he is thinking of using to deal with this.
When I asked Achille about one of his positions in Part and Places, we had a
good discussion about the options without once mentioning an axiom. It seems
to me that the problems are reasonably well identified and the strategies
for dealing with them and their strengths and weaknesses are also visible,
which enables one to develop a strategy for regimentation. It is only when
there is a lack of a common understanding that we resort to specific example
to illustrate a general point.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
Sent: 31 May 2002 15:59
To: Chris Partridge; ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: ONT RE: Ontology case study
Chris,
At 09:16 AM 5/31/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>AP> Forgive me for being a bit pointed, but I continue to be very troubled
>by
>claims that appear to me unjustified, unspecific or unsupported on this
>list. If you believe Cyc and SUMO are "not sufficiently accurate", what
>metric is that in regard to? Is there a particular axiom in either that
>you could point out that would lead to an incorrect or inaccurate
>conclusion during the course of logical deduction?
>
>Firstly, as I and a number of other people have pointed out on this list
>many times the issue is not about particular axioms which one can tinker
>with for the rest of our lives - with little effect. My recollection of the
>discussion at the workshop in Seattle was that it was agreed that the top
>levels were not particularly well regimented and that they needed more
>work - one area discussed being, I recall mereology. Your recent post
>admitting no policy for dealing with the difference between attribution and
>exemplification is another example. At the more detailed level, I recall a
>number of people pointed out a number of problems with the notion of
>transaction and process - a point I raised personally with you.
If I were to say to Nicola for example that his upper ontology was "not
particularly well regimented" would that be a useful comment? Surely he
would expect me to justify it, and explain which terms were out of place
and how specifically I would suggest to reorganize it. I went to Casati
and Varzi and said the mereology they propose in Parts and Places was bad,
they would expect me to provide a specific example that shows a problem,
and what axioms that I would suggest changing to fix it. When people have
made specific points and suggestions for a fix, we've been able to have a
serious discussion and make fixes.
>I am "very troubled" that these issues continue to be ignored.
>
>To take an example from Cyc, relating to the enterprise, it seems to me
from
>the data I have that it regards positions as a role of a person. This is
not
>sufficient to track the identity of a position - such as the English
>Monarch. (If I am wrong, I would like to know.) I believe I raised the
>general requirement when the enterprise module of SUMO was being discussed
>and I seem to recall SUMO was amended.
This is a good example of a testable claim. If you could provide similar
examples for other parts of SUMO, that would be constructive.
>CP>It seems to me that if we are looking for the kind of general ontologies
> >that Bill suspects are not feasible, then we need to address the demands
> >of accuracy and regimentation at both the top and domain levels. In my
> >view, for the kind of applications that fall under Bill Anderson s 3), it
> >is only really possible to do these together.
>
>AP>Indeed. How would you suggest that we proceed, or proceed differently?
>
>It seems to me that what the meeting in Seattle agreed - a process of
>regimenting the top level seems sensible. My experience is that the lower
>levels normally benefit from some contact with reality. There are two
>complementary strategies - first extracting (re-engineering) the
information
>from existing working systems and secondly using the SUMO to integrate
>systems. Obviously, in both case the goal is not to just find any way
>matching up the systems, but trying to find ways of improving the ontology.
I agree that regimenting the top level seems sensible. I believe we have
accomplished that. If you feel differently, please define what a
"regimented" top would be and how it would differ from the existing SUMO.
I agree that the lower levels benefit from "contact with reality". One way
to define that is that domain-specific ontologies are developed as
extensions to the SUMO. I've cited published papers about domain-specific
military extensions. Did you mean something different?
>Chris
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571