RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
Comments below.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:mail@chrispartridge.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:30 PM
> To: Ian Niles
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Ian,
>
> I will have a good look, but I seem to recall the issue
> arises with your
> holds predicates (a quick look reveals 'holds' and 'holds
> during', but I
> seem to recall a 'holds at', but could well be mistaken).
There was never a 'holds at' predicate. As you note below, 'holdsDuring'
relates a formula to the precise time interval over which the formula is
true. The predicate 'holds' just serves to make everything first-order:
(holds ?REL ?X ?Y), for example, is equivalent to (?REL ?X ?Y), but some
theorem-provers won't accept the latter.
>
> I cannot see whether you differentiate between predicates,
> dividing them by
> which of the two holds predicates applies. It seems to me
> that you do not.
> So, for example, you allow that X could be a part of Y
> simpliciter (holds)
> or a part for a period (holds during). (I appreciate that this seems a
> clever compromise.)
Your understanding is right. The simpliciter expression would mean that X
is a part of Y throughout the duration of their existence.
>
> IM(H)O this approach is neither 3D or 4D - or maybe a closet
> 4D approach. I
> seem to remember making this point before, but shrink from
> taking the time
> to find the original email (again, I am more than willing to
> admit to a
> memory lapse - rather than undertake the search :-)).
>
> A 3D approach, would (it seems to me) say something either holds
> simpliciter - e.g. a man is an animal - or holds at a time -
> the (roughly
> speaking) present - e.g. man X is rich (tall/well etc.)
But that is the approach we have adopted with the SUMO. A formula is either
true at all times (or for the duration of its constituents), in which case
the formula is not wrapped in a 'holdsDuring' clause, or it is true only for
a limited time interval, in which case it is so wrapped.
>
> The hold during predicate seems to beg the question of what
> exists. If 'man
> X is rich from 2001 to 2003' is true, what does this imply?
> That there is a
> man rich state for this period. If so, then what is the
> relation between
> this and the statement that 'man X is rich from 2001 to 2003'
> and whatever
> is its ontological commitment.
As you know, I don't much like ontological commitments. I only want to
assume what is absolutely necessary to facilitate applications of the sort
mentioned in the Scope and Purpose statement of the SUO. I know that this
leaves a lot of unanswered questions, but the fact of the matter is that
there are a lot of unanswered questions and taking a stand on one or more of
them would only alienate a class of potential users and thus make the
ontology less desirable as a standard.
>
> I see that SUMO says "(&%holdsDuring ?TIME ?FORMULA) means that the
> proposition denoted by ?FORMULA is true in the time frame
> ?TIME. Note that
> this implies that ?FORMULA is true at every &%TimePoint which is a
> &%temporalPart of ?TIME."
> Again, I am not sure what ontic commitment this brings - are
> there 'X states
> of being A' at every &%TimePoint? Or does SUMO sit on the
> fence? I suspect
> (with, I agree, not much research, the latter).
SUMO happily sits on the fence.
>
> Before Pierre leaps in, I accept that 4 dimensionalism can
> be, with enough
> conceptual sleight of hand, be made consistent with the
> reality of tense.
> But 3Dism and some level of acceptance of the reality of
> tense seem (to me
> among others) to go hand in hand,
I'm not sure what you mean by "acceptance of the reality of tense".
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 24 June 2003 21:25
> To: 'mail@chrispartridge.net'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
> > >
> >
>