RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Dear Adam,
A conformant ontology or information model might simply refer to
the SUO for the axioms/definition of a term T.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 02 February 2002 00:18
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>