Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Matthew,
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said (copy
below). In particular, the following point is the
reason for my reluctance to formulate such a distant
goal in the original draft of motion #2:
> What cannot be done (today or in the next 5 years) is to create
> a single canonical ontology that will gain universal, or even
> very widespread acceptance.
As I said to Eric, I am not opposed to stating such
a goal or to having it in the SUO charter. And I
would be happy to second Eric's motion to reaffirm
such a goal as the ultimate target of the SUO WG.
My pessimism about the possibility of achieving a
single universal ontology is the result of looking
at history and at the present situation: the best
philosophers in the world have devoted 2.5 millennia
to that task without reaching agreement, and the
best ontologists today are creating ever greater
divergence rather than convergence.
Despite that pessimism, I believe that the SUO WG,
with the help and collaboration of anyone else in
the world who may be interested, can make a valuable
contribution: a systematic framework that relates
everything that is now being done; and within that
framework, a small number (preferably one or two)
"reference models" that have the broadest, most
complete, and most systematic coverage of the whole.
That goal is admittedly vague, but the vagueness is
the result of our incomplete knowledge of what is
possible. As we proceed with this work, we may be
better able to characterize it. But at the moment,
it is premature to commit to anything more specific.
John Sowa
_____________________________________________________
West, Matthew R wrote:
> Dear Eric,
>
> Perhaps I am just a pragmatist, and will settle for what can be
> done rather than go for what I know cannot be done.
>
> What cannot be done (today or in the next 5 years) is to create
> a single canonical ontology that will gain universal, or even
> very widespread acceptance. The reason for this is simple, some
> 18 months ago there was considerable discussion here about 3D
> and 4D approaches, which concluded that they were contradictory,
> and so could not be merged in the way that different ontologies
> that had the same basic assumptions could be. If you look at
> Nicola Guarino's paper:
> http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D15.pdf
>
> You will see some other choices that different ontologies make
> also identified, where there can be good reasons for particular
> choices depending on your objectives. There is therefore no
> prospect of widespread agreement on a single ontology, there
> are just too many different camps with significant support.
>
> The question in my mind then is how do we keep people working
> together towards one goal, rather than suffer fragmentation.
>
> What I think can be achieved is a modest number (say 2-4) of
> ontologies with different foundational principles, that are
> mapped to each other and that incorporate merged elements from
> a number of ontologies of their persuasion. By being inter-
> related, they can even be thought of as a single ontology. An
> assertion in terms of one foundation will have implications in
> the others.
>
> John's motion sets the scene for this to happen.
>
> I guess we will find out how the land lies when we get the result
> of the vote.
>
> Matthew West
> Principal Consultant
> Shell Information Technology International Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com