Re: SUO: *Date 14 Feb 2002
Hi Jon,
I admit to a little confusion concerning the point you're trying to make in
your last few notes although I've found the notes interesting and thought
provoking.
Are you simply observing how hard it is to explain how humans communicate
and what a difficult problem "semantic interoperability" is? I think we
can all agree that that is the case. In fact, if you're arguing that
creating a standard ontology won't suffice to solve these problems, I
wholeheartedly agree. But isn't this a bit of a strawman? Are people
claiming that instituting a standard ontology will solve all
interoperability problems and further assuming that it is exactly this
hoped for standard upper ontology that reflects the conceptual framework
underlying all human thought and interaction? If so, I join you in heaping
ridicule on the claim or at least share some of your scepticism.
However, my ambitions for a standard upper ontology are not nearly as
lofty. I see such an ontology simply as a potentially useful resource that
will facilitate (not fully achieve) interoperability exactly because many
people have agreed to use it as the basis for their ontologies, not because
it provides some insight into cognition. I don't think it will explain
how humans think or communicate nor do I see it as the holy grail of
artificial intelligence. Do you have reasons to think that the proposed
ontology(ies) are unsuitable given these less grandiose plans? I'm very
interested in the deeper questions you allude to but since I was never
under the impression that a standard ontology would answer them, I don't
find them particularly damning for the SUO effort.
But maybe I'm not understanding your point in which case I apologize.
best,
Mike Pool
At 09:00 AM 2/14/2002 -0500, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>SUO WG Members,
>
>Let me try to bring some thoughts together about one
>of the more persistent phenomena that I've observed
>in this group, and one that I think will doom our
>efforts to if we don't address it smartly enough.
>
>An example from real life:
>
>| The Chair of a Mathematics Department
>| sends a memo to the Faculty that says:
>|
>| The Curriculum Committee will meet in Room 432 at 1 today
>| to evaluate the new teaching modules for teaching modules.
>
>Most of the recipients will take read this in passing
>as it crosses their desks without so much as blinking
>an eye, and only a few will give it more than a smile.
>
>Happens all the time.
>
>Things that happen all the time are called "persistent phenomena",
>and they are the sorts of things that a person just has to learn
>how to deal with.
>
>As it happens, though, we seem to be operating under the
>influence of a persistent assumption that this sort of
>phenomenon can be eliminated from our daily lives.
>
>Something has obviously got to give.
>
>For my part, I blame Aristotle:
>
>| Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or
>| impressions (pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words
>| are the signs of words spoken. As writing, so also is speech
>| not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections
>| themselves, of which these words are primarily signs (semeia),
>| are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the objects
>| (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or
>| likenesses, images, copies (homoiomata).
>|
>| Aristotle, 'On Interpretation', 1.16a.4-7, H.P Cooke (trans.),
>|'Aristotle, Volume 1', trans. by H.P. Cooke and H. Tredennick,
>| Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
>|
>| http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg03284.html
>| http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg03316.html
>| http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg03317.html
>| http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg03324.html
>
>This idea, that there just has to be some sort of a "common sense",
>that is to say, a "canonical concept" or a "mutual mental meaning"
>for everything under heaven, and that all we have to do is resort
>to that in order to resolve all of our "failures to communicate",
>that is an idea I normally describe as "Aristotle's approximation
>to the sign relation". My considered judgement tells me that it
>is an idea whose time has come, at which time it was most likely
>a needful thing to assume, if only to be avoid being overwhelmed
>by the real complexity of sign relations, and whose time may even,
>one day, far in the future, come again, but an idea whose time is
>gone, for now, and maybe for good.
>
>One of the things that will really doom this project is if we think
>that the only way to achieve inter-communication and inter-operation
>is to try and re-institute this very fond notion in our new web warps.
>
>But that's enough for today.
>
>Happy Valentine's Day!
>
>Jon Awbrey
>
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
________________________________
Mike Pool
Information Extraction & Transport, Inc.
(703) 841-3500 x632
(703) 841-3501 Fax