SUO: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
PG: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies ...
This is what the kids call a no-brainer.
The motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies, parsing "ontos + logos"
as "stories about being", is that there 'are' a multiplicity of ontologies in the
world today, and anybody who looks around knows that, and anybody who cares about
"what is" needs start from that -- which is where we are -- and anybody who ignores
that is just not a part of the conversation yet, the part of the conversation that
is making a contribution to what we call "knowledge".
Now get used to it.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Pierre Grenon wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> > Hello, Pierre.
> >
> > I don't see what 'absolutism' or 'relativism' have to do with a SUO, as in
> > your remarks below, although I suppose they might have. Unless you were
> > thinking of the Temporal Logic disputes - 3D vs. 4D.
>
> What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies in your opinion
> and what motivates your agnosticism?
>
> > But very well, let us say that a SUO is not, after all, a Standard Upper
> > Ontology, but something less comprehensive, as you indicate -- a Standard
> > Upper Scientific Ontology. (Or is it to be a Standard Upper Engineering
> > Ontology?)
>
> Sorry if I've been sloppy, I didn't mean that. I meant that SUO can be built
> based on reliable knowledge and that we don't have to call totalitarian an
> attempt at deriving a SUO based on conventional views. This which seems trivial
> to me has seemingly scandalized certain.
>
> > What sort of science shall we include? Mathematical physics, common-sense
> > physics? Biology? Chemistry? Quantum physics? Economics -- is it a science?
> > Psychology -- is it a science?
>
> Yes, those are challenging issues but they are not relevant. I meant for
> science to be used in our determination of what there is. I didn't mean that we
> should build ontologies of these sciences. (There's a distinction in my
> understanding here.) An SUO is domain independent in my view, so it can't
> bother doing chemistry for instance. Now if chemistry, classical mechanics and
> other speak about endurants, this suggests that endurant is potentially a legit
> ULevel category sitting on top of the putative ontologies for these sciences.
>
> I can't address the questions in the 2 paragraph below. They are not relevant
> to the SUO (let's say not immediately relevant). I do not relaly understand the
> thrid paragraph below, but i assume the objection is removed if the above
> clarifies my earlier claim.
>
> > What are the essential common vocabularies of these sciences? What are the
> > boundaries of science? Do you know a formal means of indicating them? I
> > don't, and I don't believe it exists, but I see great difficulties in trying
> > to settle such a question, and I would have to defer to specialists in every
> > branch. While it's well known that experts often disagree -- and experts in
> > logic disagree about the nature of logic.
> >
> > One might attempt to formalize some sciences in set theory (a la Suppes,
> > e.g.) but I don't know what special vocabulary one could use for all of the
> > candidate sciences beyond that particularly specialized language. Using set
> > theory only, though, would leave us with a 'simple' ontology of sets (or
> > classes?), so that the SUO work, in one sense, might be quickly done. But
> > even if such a limited SUO were done in this way, what would be done about
> > discovering and resolving disagreements among competing axiomatizations?
> > What would have been accomplished, lacking that?
> >
> > On the other hand, to introduce vocabulary 'directly' is to invite endless
> > possibilities of inconsistency (or irresolution), as Cyc, for instance, does
> > with CycL. Logically speaking, how is the introduction of specialized
> > vocabulary to remain 'neutral' on ontological questions? By a very carefully
> > crafted hierarchy of universal hypotheticals? Is that possible or practical,
> > or particularly useful? In any event, at some point not far off,
> > axiomatizations competing in actual use will have to face existential
> > counterclaims.
> >
> > I think that the way forward is (in part) to create a mechanism for
> > registering and recording the ontological possibilities, and for resolving
> > differences as they might be discoverable. That, to me, seems to me to be
> > the best course toward 'accepting our limitations', which you also
> > recommend, and of acknowledging the very practical and actual realities of
> > context, viewpoint, and of process and change in our states of knowledge.
>
> I don't see the point of putting in place such heavy machinery, unless the
> objective of the participants in this group have changed. Mine haven't.
>
> > I don't object to anyone trying to create a SUO, which is why I voted for
> > the SUMO proposal, but I don't expect it to be interestingly useful very
> > soon to anyone in the 'real world'.
> >
> > I am sure that there are many varieties of interesting but incompatible
> > SUOs, which is why I voted for the second proposal.
>
> But this is the whole point Jay. How many of them are there, which are the
> distinction which generate splits? Are these real distinction or is it mere
> obsession with compartimenting? (really, I fear that most of the module as
> envisioned by John Sowa and other are just topic oriented Cyc microtheories,
> not many will account for genuine alternative) After 2 years, there is no
> agenda and no analysis has been carried on with respect to the content of one
> or many SUOs, but now comes the time of glory where we will resolve all issues
> by creating a registry on the basis of two ontologies... I can hardly contain
> my excitement.
>
> Best,
> Pierre
>
> > Best,
> > Jay
> >
> > -----
> --
> 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o