RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
Adam,
I seem to have two emails from you, which I presume cross. So I have
included them together.
In the first email below, you say - 'Some more general discussion of things
like methodology is certainly appropriate,' - this is not clear from what
you said in the second email 'welcome to 'not only changes to specific
existing axioms but new ones of course''.
However, this does not go to what I see as the core issue - the need for
more clarity and regimentation - which should result in axioms, but does not
start with them.
My work is synthesising enterprise ontologies to build a core ontology has
confirmed my conviction that a regimented upper level is essential. This can
be illustrated with an example in my discussion with Ian - which I believe
he has not answered. The shift from treating positions as roles to persons
is (I believe right) but it brings some consequences - as noted below. It
seems to me sensible to discuss these to ensure some kind of understanding
of the issues before working at the detail of axioms.
> To take an example from Cyc, relating to the enterprise, it
> seems to me from
> the data I have that it regards positions as a role of a
> person. This is not
> sufficient to track the identity of a position - such as the English
> Monarch. (If I am wrong, I would like to know.) I believe I raised the
> general requirement when the enterprise module of SUMO was
> being discussed
> and I seem to recall SUMO was amended.
I don't know where Cyc stands on this issue, but in the SUMO 'Position' is a
subclass of 'CognitiveAgent', so that the identity of a position can be
"tracked".
CP2> But did you also amend the relevant bits of the mereology axioms to
cater for what you have introduced? And so on....
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: apease@ks.teknowledge.com [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
Sent: 05 June 2002 23:36
To: Chris Partridge; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
Chris,
Thanks for explaining. I guess I had lost track of the context of your
statements. To summarize, I believe that the bulk of discussion on the SUO
list should be change proposals on the two starter documents (as well as
any future starter documents). That would consist of new text or KIF
statements, or changes to existing content. Some more general discussion
of things like methodology is certainly appropriate, but the balance of
messages currently is grossly weighted to topics that are quite distant
from any particular, concrete change or addition to a starter document,
which I feel is the wrong balance.
Adam
[snip]
>CP2> Then it appears that the SUMO proposers have a restricted welcome to
>'not only changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course'
rather
>than an unrestricted one.
>
I'm unclear at what you consider to be a restriction. Could you clarify?
[snip]
At 04:02 PM 6/5/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I am a little surprised that you are unclear. Your response suggested that
>you welcome ''not only changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of
>course'. This leaves a number of areas uncovered. For example, what
strategy
>one should adopt, what methodology etc. It would also seem to exclude
>discussions that did not take place directly in terms of axioms - a point
>you made in an earlier email to me.
>
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Adam
>Pease
>Sent: 05 June 2002 17:15
>To: Chris Partridge; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Cc: Pierluigi Miraglia
>Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
>
>
>
>Chris,
>
>At 08:59 AM 6/5/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
>
>
>[snip]
>
> >Adam clarified this.
> >CP1>I would appreciate a little more detail on what the process for
taking
> >the
> > >document forward might be. I was a little surprised that the SUMO
>proposers
> > >wanted all development restricted to ONLY suggestions to amendments to
> > >specific axioms.
> >AP>Just to clarify, the SUMO document is under the control of the group.
> >The
> >SUMO proposers have no veto power. Personally, we would welcome not only
> >changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course.
> >
> >CP2> Then it appears that the SUMO proposers have a restricted welcome to
> >'not only changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course'
>rather
> >than an unrestricted one.
> >
>
>I'm unclear at what you consider to be a restriction. Could you clarify?
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571
Chris,
At 08:59 AM 6/5/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
[snip]
>Adam clarified this.
>CP1>I would appreciate a little more detail on what the process for taking
>the
> >document forward might be. I was a little surprised that the SUMO
proposers
> >wanted all development restricted to ONLY suggestions to amendments to
> >specific axioms.
>AP>Just to clarify, the SUMO document is under the control of the group.
>The
>SUMO proposers have no veto power. Personally, we would welcome not only
>changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course.
>
>CP2> Then it appears that the SUMO proposers have a restricted welcome to
>'not only changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course'
rather
>than an unrestricted one.
>
I'm unclear at what you consider to be a restriction. Could you clarify?
[snip]
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571