RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
John,
I hope you don't mind if I jump in here. It's true, as the
quotation from the WonderWeb paper asserts, that the developers of the SUMO
did not assume a "specific theoretical approach" in creating and refining
the ontology. However, this does not imply, as you seem to believe, that
there is no metaphysical perspective which has guided the development of the
ontology. In fact, the SUMO is firmly rooted in metaphysical naturalism,
viz. the belief that the natural world, the world of physical processes and
objects, is all that there is. Since naturalism is compatible with many
theoretical orientations, it is possible to be both metaphysically grounded
and ontologically eclectic.
As I've said before, I think that the whole purpose of a standard
upper ontology is defeated if one assumes anything beyond naturalism. For
one thing, the add-ons will always alienate those who are ontologically
committed to the negation of the add-ons, and, to the extent that people
refuse to use the ontology, it will not serve its intended function of
semantic middleware. For another thing, the add-ons are, I claim,
unnecessary. Although they may arouse deep passions among philosophers, we
have yet to find one that is needed to facilitate semantic interoperability.
The closest we've come is in the 3D/4D dispute, but, even there, I think the
consensus was that you could simply pick one representation and then provide
a mapping to the other. This is exactly what we have done with the SUMO.
In any case, perhaps rather than citing chapter and verse from
Pierce, you could cite an example where a metaphysical assumption more
robust than that of naturalism is needed to facilitate one of the
applications mentioned in the SUO Scope and Purpose statement.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:31 AM
> To: Erik Larson; John F. Sowa; Fowler, Julian; Jon Awbrey; Burkett,
> Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>
> Erik,
>
> I mentioned SUMO as an example of a monolithic ontology
> because Adam has been insisting for a long time that there
> is no need to support options, modules, or microtheories.
>
> He agreed to vote for motion #2, but he remains unconvinced
> about the need for any kind of modularity that goes beyond
> the simple decomposition of SUMO into 11 modules, all of which
> are assumed (but not yet proven) to be consistent with one
> another.
>
> The definition of a monolithic ontology is one that is (or
> can be) stated as a single consistent theory with no room
> for incompatible options. That is what SUMO is today, but
> it's definitely not what Cyc is. I don't know about DOLCE.
>
> > John, you're not singling out SUMO as a "monolithic" ontology
> > are you? Many would agree that it's significantly less
> > monolithic then its competitors, specifically becuase it was
> > designed with communities of users in mind. For instance...
>
> Those quotations from Guarino and OpenCyc state principles,
> which don't say anything about modularity. I believe it is
> a mistake not to emphasize modularity and options. But I know
> that Cyc does have about 6000 microtheories, and I hope that
> mechanism (or something like it) eventualy makes its way into
> OpenCyc and whatever is proposed by the SUO Working Group.
>
> >SUMO:
> >
> >Because of its characteristic merging of different upper level
> > ontologies, SUMO is actually not influenced by a specific
> > theoretical approach, rather it tends to take from various
> > ontological proposals those general categories which seem
> > to be largely shared by the computer science community.
>
> I doubt that Guarino or the Cyclers would question the value
> of borrowing ideas and axioms from many different sources.
>
> But when people say that they have "not been influenced by
> a specific theoretical approach" that merely means that they
> have not fully analyzed their assumptions. That is not a good
> sign -- it implies that that they have not done their homework.
>
> > Given your interest in avoiding biases in the construction
> > of an SUO, it seems you ought to be receptive to the SUMO
> > approach. Are you?
>
> I'll reply with a quotation from my favorite philsopher,
> C. S. Peirce:
>
> Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any
> metaphysics... and you have found one whose doctrines are
> thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics
> with which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the
> great naturalist Aristotle -- if only to avoid philosophizing.
> Every man of us has a metaphysics, and has to have one; and
> it will influence his life greatly. Far better, then, that
> that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed
> to run loose.
>
> Peirce said this about Ernst Mach and the positivists, but
> he would have been even more vehemently opposed to the logical
> positivists of the 1920s and 30s. It also applies to anybody
> who claims no influence from "a specific theoretical approach."
>
> John
>