Re: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft -- *Date 01 Feb 2002
Jim,
I'll give you my opinions on these. Others folks will likely have other
viewpoints.
At 11:52 AM 2/1/2002 -0700, James Schatzman wrote:
>Dear Folks,
>
> Forgive me if my query is out of place. I am new to knowledge engineering
>and there are some things I do not understand.
>
>1) If this is truly "top level" knowledge we are talking about, why does it
>define specific biological functions such as senses?
It's a judgement call about what counts as "top level", "domain specific"
etc. Rather than getting hung up on where those dividing lines might be
our approach in SUMO is to include anything a reasonable person could make
a case for being upper level and worry later about how we can trim down.
>2) Is it possible that a still higher level of abstraction might be useful?
It's possible, what are the abstractions you had in mind?
>3) What is the roadmap by which recommendations of this organization
>will be promulgated and adopted by the knowledge technology academic
>and commercial communities?
I don't think we a roadmap. I'm certainly telling people about SUMO in
talks and papers, and using it in various application projects.
Adam
>Thank you-
>
>Jim Schatzman
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
> > 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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571