Re: SUO: Finding an upper ontology
John,
Few questions below.
Pierre
> Jean-Luc,
>
> That note you cited is very relevant to the current debates.
I'm puzzled by the claim that the issue is not only a question of language. I
don't see how language is assumed to be relevant in the first place.
> I enclose a copy below for SUO readers who don't click on URLs.
>
> I like Downes's phrase "a regime of ontological authoritarianism",
I think you once said that some people on this list were comparable to
religious fanatics. I'm glad that you would seem to be ready to attribute
rationality to those people now.
> which is a very good characterization of what some people on SUO
> list are advocating. The question of whether a single SUO is
> possible is an empirical issue that can only be answered by
> analyzing a very wide range of data and determining whether
> a single SUO can emerge.
I doubt this kind of agenda would be carried on under the motion you are
proposing. It seems to me that you have already determined whether a single SUO
can emerge. The real problem is the way the output of this group will be
_built_.
...
> 2. For starters, the only universal point we can all agree to
> is a one-category ontology, which contains nothing but the
> empty node at the top. That is a start, but not a very
> useful one.
Is this a joke?
> 3. The next step is to determine a set of distinctions that
> can be used to classify entities. That is a time-honored
> principle since Socrates and Plato. I describe that
> process in Ch 2 of my KR book and summarize it on my
> web site: http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/
Just for the record: it is Plato who should have drunk the hemlock.
Just a small clarification question: would you really be happy with an ontology
which resembles your lattice of categories of beverages or is it an ad hoc
dummy? (BTW the link for your tutorial on lattices is broken)
> 4. The combination of all distinctions that are truly universal
> -- i.e. those that apply to any entities whatever -- form
> a lattice, as I summarize in the opening page of my web site
> and as the Formal Concept Analysis people have supported
> with a great deal of theory, practice, and software.
I don't see how distinctions can form anything but trees, honest.
...
> 7. One example of an incompatible distinction is the 3D vs. 4D
> representation of space-time, which everybody has been citing.
> The question of how many such incompatible distinctions there
> are is an empirical issue that can only be determined by
> analyzing the data.
Which data? Do you mean that you will get the distinction for a SUO form
OpenCyc, SUMO and the like?
The distinction you are speaking of, you can't expect to find them in a sample
of ontologies, as broad may be while remaining manageable, especially when the
elements in the sample bear so much similarities. You acknowledge yourself
(don't you) that particular theories will follow a path in the tree (of
distinctions) or maybe semi-lattice of theories or whatever. So you hope to
find in OpenCyc and SUMO a number of choices which indicate a number of
alternative and build your lattice of theories based on these alternatives?
Again, it seems to me a loosy way to go. Distinctions should come a priori,
especially if your reference is Plato and not Lenat.
> Summary: I believe it is possible to *discover*, not *legislate*,
Lesgislation = philosophical analysis?
Discovery = software engineering exegesis?
\@