RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Adam --
I'm still planning to take you up on your suggestion to reword the initial
phrase in the conformance section of the document. In the meantime, let me
quickly jump on this discussion to amplify my point about the limits to
elaboration that the current clauses seem to imply. In your example below,
you declare CharitableGiving to be a subclass of Giving, and therefore
conformant to the stipulation that all terms in the definition of a new
term in O should be terms in SUO. What I would say about this example is
that CharitableGiving has been defined as a subclass, but that it isn't a
very interesting elaboration unless there is also something about a
Charity, which would differentiate CharitableGiving from other kinds of
Giving. But Charity is not in the SUO (and I would argue that it shouldn't
be, because it is not an "upper" kind of concept). So, the conformance as
stipulated militates against interesting and useful elaboration.
Doug McDavid
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com
"Imagine all the people ... living life in peace."
Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>@majordomo.ieee.org on 02/05/2002
10:08:17 AM
Please respond to Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
To: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>,
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Matthew,
At 09:41 AM 2/5/2002 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>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".
Here's an example with respect to SUMO and a compliant application. Let's
say that I define the new concept (subclass CharitableGiving
Giving). 'Giving' and 'subclass' are terms in SUMO and I don't add any new
axioms for them. 'CharitableGiving' doesn't appear in SUMO. I'm therefore
compliant with clause #1. For clause 2a, 'Giving' and 'subclass' are SUMO
terms. 'CharitableGiving' is compliant with clause 2b. There are no
contradictions with SUMO with respect to the one new axiom '(subclass
CharitableGiving Giving)' which is compliant with clause 3. This example,
which does not repeat the contents of SUMO, is compliant with respect to
the conformance statement I've suggested.
>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.
If it's not possible, please provide a concrete example of a new
'non-primitive' term.
>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.
>
I agree that these are two useful cases and I believe that the conformance
statement I've proposed directly supports both those cases.
Adam
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571