RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Matthew,
I think in the previous round of discussion on this thread you had also
advocated what I consider to be a much looser standard for conformance. I
don't see how SUO will do much to advance interoperability if conformance
means only that an information model refers to a few terms in SUO, but then
is allowed to define or redefine all the others terms it uses in a way that
is inconsistent with SUO. Unless we specify conformance conditions that
prohibit that, as I've done below, conformance will mean very little.
Adam
At 07:46 PM 2/3/2002 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571