Re: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Folks,
In response to both on-line and off-line comments on the conformance
clause, I've updated the documented and posted it. For reference, the new
clause reads
Implementations of SUO are "ontologies" or "information models".
A conforming implementation is an ontology or information model O such that
all three of the following rules are satisfied:
1. For every term T occurring in both O and the SUO, the axioms for T
in O must be exactly those axioms for T in the SUO whose component terms
all occur in the language of O.
2. Every term T in O
a. appears in the SUO, or
b. has axioms in O and the axioms are well-formed formulas of SUO-KIF
(or when translated from the language used for O into SUO-KIF is a
well-formed formula of SUO-KIF) containing only the most specific
appropriate terms which are axiomatized in the SUO or
c. is axiomatized in using terms which have property 2b.
3. O is internally consistent and it is consistent with the SUO: a
contradiction cannot be derived by means of first-order logic from the set
of statements belonging either to O or to the SUO.
Constructive comments welcomed. Especially helpful are specific proposed
rewordings.
Adam
At 09:14 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, 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