RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Doug,
Let's make an example of an interesting elaboration then.
(=>
(and
(instance ?GIVE CharitableGiving)
(agent ?GIVE ?AGENT)
(recipient ?GIVE ?REC)
(patient ?GIVE ?OBJ))
(and
(wants ?REC ?OBJ)
(inScopeOfInterest ?AGENT ?REC)))
(disjoint CharitableGiving Transaction)
Here are two axioms that create a new class of CharitableGiving, and define
it in terms of other SUMO terms. It is an interesting elaboration and it
is a conforming one according to my proposed conformance statement.
Adam
At 11:40 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571