Re: SUO: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies?
At 08:40 AM 6/11/2003 -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>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".
1) As has been said any number of times, a single ontology should be capable of holding, different and possibly inconsistent reasoning, modules. No one is arguing against that. In other words, it should recognize the possibility that different reasoning contexts may require different approaches to reasoning. The oft-discussed 3D vs. 4D issue comes to mind as does the question of whether and the extent to which one wants to reify events or situtations to represent states of affairs.
2) Having said that, the entire point of having a *single* upper ontology is so that all these different teller of stories about being can talk to each other and get their basic terms straight before/while telling their "stories about being". An upper ontology probably shouldn't be making very many ontological commitments at the level at which people profoundly disagree anyway. Agreeing on an upper ontology does not preclude the possibility of different conflicting "stories" being told in ontologies based on the upper ontology.
>Now get used to it.
Under your "multiplicity of stories about being" story isn't Pierre just another story-teller? Why does he have to get used to anything? Can't he just tell his "onto + logos" without being subjected to this very brusque dismissal based on the assumption that your own "onto + logos" is superior? Very intolerant of you, Jon.
Mike Pool
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>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