Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Hi,
This sounds like a weird argument to me. I thought we were doing science and
engineering maybe... The theological questions raised below are not of this
order at all and the analogy doesn't hold imho.
There is no claim that aiming at an ontology (whatever its structure!) rather
than a series of alternative is an attempt to derive _the_ ultimate and
absolute ontology. But it seems reasonable to me to aim at something which is
the closest to the best of our knowledge - (we is a relevant community,
scientific one in particular).
To use your example for another purpose, an SUO would not tell you whether
there are gods and how many of them if any. It could tell you that there are
agents and that these agents have beliefs if you want. This seems both true and
relevant to the SUO. From there you can build the ontology of whichever
mythology you like or whichever belief system consistent with one side of the
debate. Gods are agents, people have are agents, agents have beliefs, people
may believe in gods and so on... An SUO ought to be neutral on narrow domain
issues.
I think we have both a problem of scope and method with the SUO. SUO is general
(enough to trace over a number of the most contentious distinction) and it
should reflect whatever the state of our knowledge is conventional, maybe among
certain communities of expert (although this is what tends to motivate splits).
The trouble is not whether we will have a definitive list of all conceivable or
possible entities. This is not only irrelevant to the SUO, it is harmful. The
trouble is that we are putting in place some ad hoc machinery which reflect a
doctrinal position and some obscur obligation to acknowledge the will of a
couple of systems. Relativist poseurs on this list are wimps: if they really
believed in what they profess they should just accept the limitations of our
knowledge and live with it. Accept that an ontology like science and knowledge
may change and hopefully progress. A standard ought to be amendable by
principle and this is precisely how an SUO could progress, rather than by
apologizing for its existence.
To speak as some of my dearest AI visionaries, if an SUO is really something
which must reflect a purpose and some contingency, it seems to me that if we
come up with one which serves its purpose for a couple of decades, we should be
more than happy. If it outlives us, people should start worrying about it. Why
would somebody who believes that truth may not be absolute would do something
as foolish as to presume the nature of what people in more than 20 years from
now will find to be a good SUO? And why bother them with a shitload of
alternative which may turn out to be irrelevant in 5 years from now? This
reflect some of the incoherence of the kind of relativism advocated in this
list. I'm afraid there is more work toward achieving glory than toward
achieving any goal stated in the PAR.
Best
Pierre
>
> For the advocates of a monolithic SUO, consider:
>
> 1) monotheism
> 2) duotheism
> 3) polytheism
> 4) atheism
>
> A) When do you expect to arrive at a definitive position on this debate?
> B) When do you expect to have your definitive position universally
> acclaimed? How will you accomplish this acceptance and how will you know it
> is attained?
> C) Is this an empirical debate?
>
> Your actual task is harder, since you have not only to consider all actual
> kinds of entities, many of which are as yet unknown, but all possible kinds.
>
> D) What mechanisms will you use to assess your progress and resolve
> disputes?
>
> It's nice to know we'll never run out of work, but it's also nice to make a
> bit of progress.
>
> I vote 'yes' on the two motions below.
>
> Jay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jim.s3@juno.com>
> To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Cc: <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 18:04
> Subject: SUO: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
>
> >
> > ATTN Voting Members of IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working
> > Group:
> >
> > 1. Please vote on the below two questions. Votes may be in the form of
> > YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. The motion will pass if both (a majority of voting
> > members either vote or acknowledge receipt of the ballot) and (YES votes
> > are greater than [NO plus ABSTAIN votes]).
> >
> > 2. If you are unsure whether you are a voting member, see the list of
> > voting members at http://suo.ieee.org/voting-members.txt.
> >
> > 3. If you choose not to vote, please acknowledge receipt of the ballot.
> >
> > 4. The period for voting will end at midnight EDT on June 13, 2003. If a
> > majority of voting members have not yet voted or acknowledged, the chair
> > may extend the period for voting and may remind those who have not
> > responded.
> >
> > 5. Please email your vote to Jon Awbrey (copied above) and me, but not
> > the SUO list, unless you specifically want your vote (and any comments)
> > shared with everyone.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Ballot Question #1:
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.52
> > [April 25, 2003] posted at:
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.
> > txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain> (containing the ontology) and
> > http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
> > (containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with the intent of
> > developing it into a final SUO document. There is further intent to
> > collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
> > project.
> >
> > Background: Information which is not part of the motion or proposed
> > starter document, but which may be helpful in appreciating its value, is
> > as follows. The SUMO was first released on Dec 9, 2000. The first and
> > all subsequent revisions have been public releases. SUMO is being used
> > by (a small number) of companies and research institutions around the
> > world. It has been subject to formal verification by an automated
> > theorem prover. It has been divided into 11 modules to simplify reuse.
> > SUMO is small enough to be easily learned (approximately 1000 terms, 4000
> > axioms, 750 rules) but large enough to cover, at a high level, any domain
> > of interest. It is well-axiomatized, including many rules, not just a
> > type structure. The language it is written in is defined at
> > <http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html>. SUMO has been written independently
> > of any particular theorem prover and has been used in several different
> > systems including LOOM and SNARK. SUMO has also been used in the
> > creation of a number of other freely available products, as listed below
> >
> > - WordNet Mappings: We've now mapped, by hand, all of the
> > approximately 100,000 WordNet synsets to SUMO concepts. In addition to
> > the nouns, we've mapped the verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>
> >
> > - SUMO-Compliant Domain Ontologies. These include ontologies for
> > weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Quality of Service ontology,
> > covering computer systems and networks, Ecommerce Services ontology,
> > Ontology of biological viruses, Financial ontology, Ontology of terrain
> > features, an ontology of Government, and a Periodic table of the
> > elements.
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/index.html#download>
> >
> > - LOOM Translator for SUMO
> > <http://einstein.teknowledge.com:8080/Sumo2Loom/Sumo2Loom_register.jsp?fi
> > leType=.tar&fileName=sumo2loom_b7.tar>
> >
> > - DAML translation of SUMO
> > <http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/SUMO.daml>
> >
> > - XML translation of SUMO
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/Merge-XML.txt> and KIF to
> > XML translator <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/KIF2XML.txt>
> >
> > - open source browser download for SUMO
> > <http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/>
> >
> > - on-line SUMO browser
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=SUMO>
> >
> > All of these items are freely available through our Ontology home page:
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com> or directly at the links above.
> >
> > Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( )
> >
> > --------End Ballot Question #1----------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Ballot Question #2:
> >
> > Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO)
> > commence work on a project to develop a standard for ontology
> > specification and registration, according to the following guidelines:
> >
> > 1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three SUO
> > candidate projects: IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
> >
> > 2. The standard shall specify an ontology registry, such as the
> > metadata registries specified by ISO/IEC IS 11179-3, but with extensions
> > that are required to define ontologies and to relate them to one another.
> >
> > 3. The ontology registry shall be organized as a collection of
> > modules, related in a generalization/specialization hierarchy.
> >
> > 4. Each module shall consist of a theory together with
> > documentation and other metadata. The theory shall consist of axioms
> > and definitions stated in a logic-based language, such as those in the
> > Common Logic (CL) framework.
> >
> > 5. The standard shall include the specification of a
> > methodology for testing the theory part of any module for consistency,
> > relating theories to one another in the generalization/specialization
> > hierarchy, and combining two or more theories to derive a new theory
> > that is larger and more specialized than the theories from which it was
> > derived.
> >
> > Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( )
> >
> > --------End Ballot Question #2---------------------------------
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> >
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179
āF]@