Re: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
John,
Do you agree or disagree about separating, at least temporarily, the SUO
group into two groups with the following proposed charters:
Standard Ontology Mapping Framework
This standard will specify a formal framework for expressing the
relationships among ontologies, and for performing conversions among
them. The standard will allow a lattice of theories to be constructed by
providing the mathematical framework for their expression. While the
construction of content-level theories addressing issues such as spatial
and temporal representations is not a primary goal, such theories may be
created to illustrate the power of the framework. The framework will
support the creation of reasoning systems that operate on the lattice by
providing the mathematical definitions for the language to which such
systems need conform. The standards group expects to cooperate closely
with IEEE PYYYY.Z in later stages of the project in hopes of achieving a
standard that addresses both multiple theory mapping and particular
instantiated theories.
Standard Upper Ontology
This standard will specify an upper ontology that will enable computers to
utilize it for applications such as data interoperability, information
search and retrieval, automated inferencing, and natural language
processing. An ontology is similar to a dictionary or glossary, but with
greater detail and structure that enables computers to process its content.
An ontology consists of a set of concepts, axioms, and relationships that
describe a domain of interest. An upper ontology is limited to concepts
that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical, and therefore are
general enough to address (at a high level) a broad range of domain areas.
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 (e.g. medical, financial, engineering, etc.) could be
constructed. The standards group expects to cooperate closely with IEEE
P1600.1 in later stages of the project in hopes of achieving a standard
that addresses both multiple theory mapping and particular instantiated
theories.
I'm agnostic about which group continues as P1600.1, so I've worded it that
the mapping ontology work continues under that mantle.
Adam
At 09:25 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I am glad that you mentioned those projects,
>because they follow a direction that is closely
>related to IFF. So any examples taken from them
>could be used to support the joint motion:
>
> > I've never said that it isn't possible that
> > IFF could be helpful. But absent any examples
> > it seems speculative at best compared to other
> > published work such as ISI's Ontomorph or the
> > work of Gio Wiederhold and his students.
>
>I explicitly worded the joint motion in a way
>that does not presuppose any particular feature
>of IFF that is not also supported by other
>approaches for ontology merging and sharing,
>including the ones you cite. (Nor does it
>exclude any feature of IFF that may prove to
>be useful as the standards effort progresses.)
>
>Following is point #3 from the motion (Pat
>Cassidy suggested some extensions to this point,
>and I am writing a separate comment about that,
>but it doesn't affect the IFF issues):
>
> > The standard shall include the specification
> > of a methodology for testing the modules for
> > consistency, relating them to one another in
> > a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> > and combining two or more modules to derive a
> > new module that is larger and more specialized
> > than the modules from which it was derived.
>
>IFF is consistent with this point, and so are
>many other approaches. But the question of how
>much of IFF and/or other approaches to include
>in the final draft of the standard will be
>determined by the way that the work progresses.
>
>That is why it is so important for the three
>groups to collaborate. That will enable the
>SUMO and OpenCyc developers (along with anybody
>else involved with the SUO effort) to have a
>say in determining how the standard develops.
>
>I believe that we all agree that some sort
>of methodology is needed to support the SUO
>content. I tried to state the motion in a way
>that would enable the specification of that
>methodology to reflect the methods that have
>proved to be the most useful, independent of
>where they come from -- IFF or any other
>project, including the ones you cite.
>
>If you feel that the wording isn't sufficiently
>clear, then please suggest a way of restating it.
>
>John
>