RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
Chris,
At 12:01 PM 6/6/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>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''.
In the second email I had misinterpreted your context. Sorry for the
confusion. The summary in the mail that reached you first addresses the
larger context. Our focus is supposed to be on creating draft documents,
so the bulk of effort and discussion should be on the starter
documents. It's not that other discussion isn't warranted, just that the
balance is way off. Self-referentially, our email exchange is contributing
to that unfortunate ratio.
>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.
That's fine but I haven't seen any axioms yet resulting from this sort of
discussion so I'm skeptical. It would be great to be proven wrong.
You need to define "clarity" and "regimentation" and what actual impact
they have on the terms and axioms in either IFF or SUMO. Both the IFF and
SUMO (and probably any other ontology author) could claim their ontologies
are "clear" and "regimented" and they'd be right.
>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.
I'd encourage you to ask the question again. We try to answer all polite
questions.
>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....
What are the axioms in the mereology that would you like amended?
Adam
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571