RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Matthew,
At 10:30 AM 2/6/2002 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
> > >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.
>
>MW: I assume you meant to say "primitive".
yes, sorry
> Your example of
>"charitable-giving" could be an example. Something is primitive if
>it is not wholly defined in terms of existing terms. So here you did
>not say that charitable-giving was also a subtype of (say) charitable-
>activity, so it is primitive in that it cannot be wholly defined in
>terms of the intersection of other concepts. It therefore introduces
>something new.
ok, so what is the problem with the conformance statement? The new example
content I provided was conforming.
>MW: Otherwise the issue seems to be that your conformance statements
>are ambiguous, at least I managed to interpret them in a way other
>than you intended.
Could you reiterate what you believe to be the ambiguity?
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: 05 February 2002 18:08
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > 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