Re: SUO: Re: Finding an upper ontology

["Pierre Grenon" <pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de>]

> Example:  Consider a map of the United States that fits on a single
> sheet of paper with a map of a single street in Chicago that shows
> each individual house on the block.  Without knowing the purpose,
> you cannot say that one is better than the other.

I strongly object. You are using in an unqualified way 'is better than'. What
you are saying is so trivial it makes me want to cry. Of course, without
knowing the purpose you can't tell whether a map is good for a given purpose.
But purpose isn't the only way to evaluate maps.

> If your purpose is to relate Chicago to the rest of the US, the
> first map is better.  But if you want to find a particular house
> on that street in Chicago, the second map is better.
>
> Value judgments about a representation always depend on purpose.

A representation has a value in so far as it represents adequately given the
perspective which is taken. 'Perspective' is a buzz word for all the
determinants of the map (scale, ontology, timespan, and so on). The perspective
may be taken without purpose. Fix a scale, then draw a map. A good map is one
which represents all the features susceptible of appearing at the chosen scale.
You can assume conventional restrictions on the domain which gives you some
other measure of relevance. An adequate map for going from the library to the
grocery store does not need to be a good map according to the scale quality
scale, although a good map at a scale in which the library and the grocery
store are pictured will have better chances to be a good map for your shoping
adventure. 

Generally speaking, what is dependent on a purpose is the kind of map you will
use. The way these maps have been built may be completely independent of your
purpose. And you may evaluate their quality without any idea of potential use.
You should hold such a view, I think, given your position on your lattice of
theories.

The best way not to build a SUO will indeed be to make something with a purpose
in mind. It's interesting that in previous mails the purpose you seemed to
conceive for building an ontology was either make money or write papers. I
don't blame you, it would be hard to predict which use there could be for the
SUO besides being a standard of reference. But I can feel the pain of those who
believe they might use it when they see that what is suggested now is some
variable geometry mish-mash founded on fashionable relativist platitudes. 

Pierre

> John Sowa
> 
>