SUO: Re: Finding an upper ontology
Stephen,
I managed to dig out an ancient version 4.0 of IE, and read
your slides. I think they make some good points:
http://www.downes.ca/files/one_standard_files/frame.htm
Your concluding slide, which I very much agree with, presents
a fundamental challenge to any attempt to develop a standard
upper ontology:
> Objects are best described using multiple vocabularies.
>
> There is no way to determine which vocabulary will be relevant
> to either an author or a user of a given object.
>
> Trying to stipulate a canonical vocabulary a priori needlessly
> reduces the effectiveness of a system of communication.
This conclusion does not mean that it is impossible to have
a sharable upper ontology, but it does imply that any such
upper level must be capable of supporting an open-ended range
of vocabulary for all possible uses and all possible purposes.
As I said in earlier notes, the question of how much can be
usefully shared is an empirical issue. It is probably more
than just a single node at the top, but how much more is
unknown.
Whether a useful amount can be shared before we have to
start admitting incompatible (i.e., mutually inconsistent)
alternative modules is also unknown.
I believe that it is probably possible to accommodate some
sharing together with some system for managing mutually
inconsistent alternatives. But again, this is an empirical
question that cannot be answered a priori.
What this means is that we cannot just pick an ontology and
legislate it as an official standard. There is still a lot
of research to be done before we can say exactly how much
can be shared and how we can best accommodate inconsistent
alternatives.
John Sowa
PS: I'll be doing some traveling for the next week or so,
and this might be the last note I'll be able submit on this
topic for a while.