Re: SUO: Re: Finding an upper ontology

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Pierre,

Again, I agree, with qualifications, with a great deal
of what you say.  But purpose or intention is central
to every semiotic system -- logic, natural language,
graphics, audio, video, or whatever.

> But purpose isn't the only way to evaluate maps.

Value and purpose are inseparable.  The word "good" always
has an explicit or implicit qualifier "for some purpse".

> 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.

What you describe below is not a map, but a photograph.  If you pick
a scale and draw every feature distinguishable at that scale, then
you have a photograph.  A map always abstracts some features from
the photograph and makes them much, much bigger:  roads for a road
map, geology for a geological map, etc.  The selection is always
made for some purpose.

Actually, even a photograph has a purpose.  The difference between
a snapshot by an amateur and a prize-winning photograph by a
professional is in the amount of skill used in the selection of
subject, the perspective, and the pesentation for some purpose.

> 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. 

Now you are talking about purpose.  You are asking for a map
that emphasizes the buildings and perhaps labels them as
"library" or "grocery store".

> 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.

A map designed for one purpose may often have some use for
other purposes.  But both the designer and the user certainly
have purposes in mind.

> The best way not to build a SUO will indeed be to make something with a purpose
> in mind.

That is impossible.  There is a continuous infinity of possible
aspects of the universe to characterize.  Every choice of categories
is done for some purpose.  Every choice of features to describe,
define, or axiomatize is done for some purpose.  An ontology
without a purpose would be totally useless.

> 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 can conceive of thousands or millions of purposes for building
an ontology.  I happened to mention those two because Mike was so
hung up about the negative aspects of the "marketplace" compared
to the positive aspects of "academia".

I have spent quite a bit of time in both environments, and I have
met lots of good, bad, and indifferent people in both.  If anything,
the academics get into far more bitter fights over money because
there is so little available to them.

> 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. 

Of course, trying to be fashionable is a purpose that many people
pursue.  And the things that are the most fashionable at one point
in time are the ones that most quickly become unfashionable.

John