RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Dear Adam,
The conformance conditions you stipulate require that everyone
repeats the SUO rather than just say "The following terms are
used as defined in the SUO".
As an addition it is not possible to require that all new terms
are non-primitive, which is what your current conformance requirements
seem to require.
Personally I think there are two things to consider:
1. Use of the SUO.
Here the important thing is that the terms are used as defined in the
SUO, nothing added, nothing taken away.
2. Extension of the SUO.
Here the important thing is that the new terms are properly integrated.
This means simple things like one term one concept (if necessary using
and managing namespaces to avoid conflicts) and logical consistency etc.
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: 04 February 2002 17:21
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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