RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
As I mentioned in my message to Matthew, we've adopted a 3D
representation. I hope we've been reasonably consistent, but please let me
know where we've failed (as always, you can access the ontology browser at
http://ontology.teknowledge.com). Also, please let me know how your
recollection of our discussions on 3D/4D issues differs from mine.
Thanks,
Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: Ian Niles
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Ian,
>
> I am not trying to be mean, but my recollection of earlier
> discussions does
> not accord with a statememt you made below.
>
> You wrote "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."
>
> Which have you chosen? And are you of the opinion that you
> have done this
> reasonably consistently?
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Ian Niles
> Sent: 23 June 2003 18:58
> To: 'John F. Sowa'; Erik Larson; Fowler, Julian; Jon Awbrey; Burkett,
> Bill; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
> >
>