Re: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft -- *Date 01 Feb 2002
Folks,
The compliance conditions are not intended to stipulate any particular
language as being required for a conforming ontology. I can see that the
wording might lead one to believe that so I'll suggest an alternate wording.
2. Every term T in O appears in the SUO or it has a definition in O
and the definition is a well-formed formula of SUO-KIF (or when translated
from the language used for O into SUO-KIF) containing only terms which are
definable in the SUO.
Adam
At 09:36 AM 2/1/2002 -0600, Pierluigi Miraglia wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 12:52:01AM -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > SUO WG Members,
> >
> > In my opinion it is a fundamental mistake to specify
> > a particular logical language, for example, KIF or
> > any other, as a part of the compliance conditions.
> > This would be as bad a practice as stipulating
> > that a compliant ontology has to be written in
> > English as opposed to French or German, or to
> > use an even more notorious analogy, that
> > a program has to be written in ADA.
> >
> > Requirements should be specified at a higher level
> > of abstraction and generality than any particular
> > ontology oriented logical formalism.
>
>Adding my $0.02, I agree with J.A.: I must say that I still have
>misgivings about the very idea of 'standard' ontologies all along, but
>aside from that it seems that the point of an ontology is primarily to
>serve as an abstraction layer for _content_.
>
>Perhaps a better compliance condition could be formulated in terms of
>traslatability or 'representability'. An ontology is compliant iff (i) it
>is formulated in _a_ language with features X, Y, Z and (ii) it is
>accompanied by a translation manual into the 'standard framework'.
>
>
> >
> > Among the more deleterious side-effects of
> > thinking in only one language is a constant
> > tendency to confuse that language with reality.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Adam Pease wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > > A while back we had some discussion about conformance clauses.
> > > Frank Farance and others also had some good input on sections
> > > that would need to be included in a formal draft SUO. Ian and
> > > I have put together a document that attempts to meet this need
> > > and incorporates as much of the input we've been given as possible.
> > > I've posted the draft at:
> > >
> > > http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf
> > >
> > > Note that to keep the document to a reasonable size for downloading,
> > > I've referenced, but not included the latest SUMO draft that would
> > > be part of a final version of the document.
> > >
> > > Constructive feedback would be welcome.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > Adam Pease
> > > Teknowledge
> > > (650) 424-0500 x571
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>--
>- - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
>Pierluigi Miraglia Cycorp, Inc.
>Ontological Engineer 3721 Executive Center Dr.
>(512) 514-2988 Austin, TX 78731
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571