RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Ian,
See my replies below.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
Sent: 24 June 2003 23:20
To: 'Chris Partridge'
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: 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.
CP>I was not clear. It is not the formula that holds, but the predicate that
is classified as a 'holds' simpliciter or 'holds during'.
CP>Under your scheme, 'holds' simpliciter is at one end of a scale where
'holds during' a &%TimePoint is at the other. So the formulas stating that
'man is an animal' using holds and 'man is an animal now' using holds during
the &%TimePoint now would both be true.
CP>My understanding is that in a 3D scheme the relation between 'substances'
such as 'man is an animal' the 'is' being read as 'is a kind (subtype) of'
would be simpliciter - whereas attributes such as being well or wealthy
would be true at a timepoint (always).
>
> 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.
CP>Then it seems to me you are not playing the (philosohical) ontological
game in not making commitments to what exists(and also, I guess, cannot make
much of your claims to be a naturalist - as you are not making any claims
about what exists). I cannot see how you can then claim to be 3D (or 4D).
Perhaps you can explain what you meant originally.
CP> Granted, taking a position may 'alienate a class of potential users' -
however, not making any claim may also do so. My area of interest is
commercial systems, and the real issue for me is whether there are
substantial benefits in taking a particular position - and my expereince
(and Matthew West's, I believe) is that there is. The problems arise, in my
experience, when the commitments are not made clear. For me, at least, SUMO
is a good example of this.
>
> 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.
CP> This seems to imply to me that you also sit on the fence with regard to
3D or 4D, as I say above. The issue seems to me to be an old one, about the
question of logical form and ontological form. SUMO seems to be saying that
it is neutral about ontological form - as it can work its inference on the
logical form. The issue for me would be how does it arrive at its logical
form?
>
> 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".
CP>I am probably not the best person to explain - if you do a search in
Google on 'reality of tense' there seems to be some material (I have just
checked).
>
> 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
> > >
> >
>