SUO: Metaphysical choices - position. mereology and constitution
Adam,
I have changed the name of the thread - as it seems to have moved on and
this forms a natural break.
I originally made the comment to illustrate some points I have been making
for some time. In no particular order:
1) There are some metaphysical questions that can usefully inform the design
of an ontology (this is in response to Ian's angels on a pin head comment).
That is not to say that some metaphysical questions may be as irrelevant as
angels to building SUO type ontologies.
2) The fact that useful discussion can take place without it being framed in
terms of axioms - though it will typically need to be cashed out in the end
in some kind of formalisation (such as axioms).
3) That there is some useful top level regimentation that still needs to be
done to the SUMO.
It seems to me that unless I explain the underlying issue here, pointing at
inconsistencies or multiple interpretations of particular axioms will appear
a bit ad hoc. So I will start by trying to sketch quickly the issue - which
will be familiar to some people.
Bill Burkett made a point to you some time ago that it was difficult to
ensure against misinterpretation of an ontology. And I think it was agreed
that reducing the risk of misinterpretation was 'a good thing'. I am
guessing (and I will rely on your and Ian's knowledge of it) but I believe
that the SUMO, as it stands, allows for some situations to be ontologised in
a number of ways, that all conform with the SUMO. And that regimentation of
the top level can eliminate this 'ambiguity'.
To see the issue that arises as a result of the original change made to
position, consider the following topical, but trivial, example. The Queen
(of England) at her Jubilee Party eats a cake. We are happy to say that it
is true that there is a cake eating event and that Queen Elizabeth eats a
cake and that Elizabeth Windsor eats a cake. Can we focus on this 'cake
eating event'
Under the original SUMO scheme - let's call it the O-C scheme - Queen
Elizabeth is a position that is a role of Elizabeth Windsor. So there is a
single 'cake eating' event.
Under the new SUMO scheme Queen Elizabeth is a Position that is a
CognitiveAgent and Elizabeth Windsor is a Human that is a CognitiveAgent. I
presume also that SUMO somewhere has an 'occupies' relation that relates the
two cognitive agents (is the occupiesPosition?).
My question is whether it is possible within this second scheme to determine
whether there is one or two cake eating events - and if so how? And whether
this is what we want to do a conscious policy?
Could you tell us what is your (and maybe Ian's) intuition is (maybe based
upon SUMO)? And how is this backed up in SUMO?
There are quite a lot of intertwined issues. But keeping things simple. Some
people will say that there are two completely distinct CognitiveAgents and
that the occupies relation that links them is a kind of constitution. Under
this strategy one typically ends up with two events. Others will say that
the occupies relation is one of sharing temporal parts and so is similar to
a temporalised (improper) part of relation. Under this strategy one
typically ends up with one event. It seems to me that would be useful to
formalise the preferred strategy to ensure that conforming ontologies end up
with the same number of objects. (NB I could not find 'constitution' or
'part of' using the browser - probably my fault).
The metaphysical choice I referred to in my original mail turns on whether
one uses part of (mereology) or constitution to link co-located objects such
as the position and its occupier (or our old friends the statue and the
clay).
I hope you can now see the underlying issue. As a matter of process, it
seems to me proper to clarify what the issues are, in rough way, and the
strategies for resolving them - refining our intuitions before diving into
formalising them.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: apease@ks.teknowledge.com [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
Sent: 11 June 2002 00:43
To: Chris Partridge; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
Chris,
At 03:56 PM 6/6/2002 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
[snip]
> >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....
>
>AP>What are the axioms in the mereology that would you like amended?
>
>The change that was made was from 'Position' being a role of a person, to
>being CognitiveAgent. It seems to me that making this shift raises obvious
>mereological questions - and also questions about metaphysical choices
>(hence me offering it as an example to Ian). I presume from your question,
>that it does not do this for you. Am I right?
Could you explain further what you see as the mereological choices, and how
they might be made with respect to the existing content of SUMO? We're not
aware of any impacts from the change that currently need to be addressed,
but would welcome detail to the contrary.
Adam
>Chris
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571