SUO: Re: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies?
Jon
Maybe I just have troubles with English.
> 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,
Do you mean that because Cycorp has developed an ontology, Teknowlöedge has
developed an ontology and John Sowa has written a book and maintain a website
about his ontology, we need such multiplicity of ontologies? So we need X
because there is X? What the hell, man, do you have more things like that to
say?
Or do you mean something like you and I do not see the same thing in the world
therefore we need an Awbrey and a Grenon ontology?
My question was directed toward Jay's remark questioning my blattering about
relativist tendencies in this list. Thanks for illustrating my point.
Pierre
> 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
>
>
--
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