SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
Title: Re: IFF Comments Requested
ATTN SUO Voting Members,
For those
who don't subscribe or perhaps filter messages from the
SUO list, please take special note of this formal request for comments
on
the IFF document.
SUO voting rules require
members to participate, though this has
never been specifically defined. For those who don't participate
in content
discussions, this call for comments is an excellent opportunity to
contribute to the work of this group.
Jim Schoening
Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Farrugia [mailto:jim@spatial.maine.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 2:46 PM
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Cc: Jim Farrugia
Subject: SUO: IFF Comments Requested
ATTN SUO WG,
It is now time for active SUO members to do a thorough review
of
IFF.
There doesn't yet seem to be anything to review.
The vote on IFF was only to decide
whether to commence work on it,
not to decide what changes or
improvements to make. But we are now
requesting that members review the IFF and submit suggested
changes.
The IFF now lives in extended form at
http://suo.ieee.org/IFF.
It consists of four pieces: an Introduction, a Core subOntology,
a Category Theory subOntology, and a Classification
subOntology.
None of those Ontologies can be accessed from that URI.
We have also posted a "changes.htm" file
(http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/changes.htm)
that describes the differences between the starter document and
the
extended version that now exists. (Essentially, some sections
that were
only sketched out in the starter document are now more fully fleshed
out
into separate pieces. The exception is that the model theory section
of
the starter document has not yet been made into its own separate
document.)
Please submit your comments by October 18, 2001, replying to this
subject line ("IFF Comments Requested"), so that we can
easily gather all
comments. (At some point later, we may suggest other subject lines
to
group together related comments.)
OK, I have a few.
First, I fail to see the utility of the emphasis placed on
category theory. This is not motivated anywhere, but it badly
needs to be motivated if you expect anyone to take it seriously enough
to even read the sources to find out what you are talking about.
Second, I do not understand what the intended role of the KIF
axioms is to the rest of the proposal; there seems to be no connection
between the contents of the KIF structural ontology and topos theory.
In particular, I simply cannot make sense of the 'categorical
property'. What new-KIF are you talking about, that is entirely
category-theoretic?
Third, the comment: "This foundational approach should answer Solomon
Feferman's qualms about logical and psychological
priority" seems to me to be particularly unfortunate,
since it manifestly does *not* answer them. Now, I would be inclined
to suggest that proper classes, small sets, etc etc, and all the other
post-Russellian FOM concerns that suffuse topos metatheory in fact
have virtually no relevance to an upper ontology in any case, and are
best simply put aside as irrelevant (or only marginally relevant); but
since you apparently do not want to take this easy way out of the
kitchen, you had better be ready to take some heat.
Fourth, you seem to have been misled by a pun on the word
"class". As used in KIF and throughout the DL logic
literature (and indeed the OOP and database communities), this does
NOT mean 'proper class' in the sense used in topos theory. In
fact, KIFclasses constitute a(n extremely small) sub-collection of the
sets; every KIFclass (extension) is a set, but not all sets are
KIFclasses. (A trivial consequence of the completeness theorem.)
Proper classes, in the topos sense, are not even in the domain of
discourse. So to interpret KIF:Class as meaning conglomerates in the
Adamek, Herrlich & Strecker sense is just plain silly. (BTW, what
a *terrible* choice as a guiding text. This is like watching
someone commit ritual suicide. Do you seriously expect a sizeable
number of IEEE members to read such a book? You could at least have
cited a slightly readable intro, such as 'categories for the working
mathematician'.)
Fifth, in spite of the reference to McLarty, there is something
highly suspicious in claiming to give a first-order axiomatization of
any part of topos theory, in view of the fact that first-order logic
satisfies the compactness and completeness theorems with respect to a
model theory based on sets. Evidently, one doesn't need the proper
classes in order to explain topos, then, right? In fact, that entire
conglomerate diagram can all just be dismissed as fantasy, if those
really are first-order logic axioms. (Or did you have some kind of
nonstandard models in mind, perhaps? So what model theory are you
assuming for your first-order axioms, maybe you could tell us?) This
is really a very hot kitchen, and I am going to hold your hands over
the fire until you squeal.
Sixth. Let me back off from having FOM fun with y'all and get to
the main point. The purpose of ontologies is to represent facts about
worlds, not to play elegant games in the foundations of mathematics.
Matthew West wants to describe oil flowing along pipelines, that kind
of thing. Now, what connection, even of the most remote kind, can you
suggest there is going to be between ANY such activity of describing
the real world, and ANY of this mathematical gamesmanship of topos
theory? So far, I can't see any.
Pat Hayes
PS. There already is a semantics for DAML+OIL, by the way. You
can find it on the DAML+OIL website. Peter Patel-Schneider, the
author, is currently revising it to bring it into line with the model
theory for RDF(S).
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.
(850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501
(850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes