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