Re: SUO: Definition of life
Adam --
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think it is a GOOD thing that
system and purpose are missing from SUMO. (I saw the hasPurpose
relationship). As I mentioned in my original note, I am coming to the
belief that these are the two most important concepts to explore in detail
in a standard, uppermost kind of ontology. As I have tried to say many
times, I think it is important for us to have a clear understanding about
how the standard will be used to help navigate the universe of more
specific domain ontologies. This issue has never been addressed by the
SUMO team. The reason, in my opinion, is that the SUMO team really has the
goal of creating the single, complete ontology for everything, rather than
a framework for domain ontologies. In this espect, again in my opinion, it
is nonconformant to the PAR, which states "Concepts specific to given
domains will not be included; however this standard will provide a
structure and a set of general concepts upon which domain ontologies ...
could be constructed." See my note to Bill on the ONT list for further
thoughts about how the concept of purpose, properly fleshed out, could be
the heart of a standard that would specifically address the purpose of the
SUO that is stated in the PAR.
Doug McDavid
IBM Business Innovation Services
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com
"Imagine all the people ... living life in peace."
Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com> on 06/02/2002 08:39:52 PM
To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, Erik Larson
<elarson_78746@yahoo.com>
cc: cg@cs.uah.edu, standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: Definition of life
Doug,
At 08:01 AM 6/2/2002 -0700, Douglas McDavid wrote:
[snip]
>By the way, you put an interesting twist on the ontology of purpose when
>you say "useful for our purposes". Purpose of ontology?
>
>And one more "by the way": neither system, nor purpose, are concepts
>ontologized in SUMO.
I'm not sure if you were making the point that the supposed absence of
these words is a good or a bad thing, but the notion of a purpose is indeed
in SUMO
<
http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=hasPurpose&skb=SUMO
>.
I should also point out that many English words do not embody clearly
definable concepts that deserve to be in an ontology. We'd welcome a
precise definition of any concept that someone feels is missing in SUMO.
Adam
>Doug McDavid
>
>IBM Business Innovation Services
>Member, IBM Academy of Technology
>mcdavid@us.ibm.com
>
>"Imagine all the people ... living life in peace."
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571