RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Thanks for your thoughts, Adam.
Please see below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:34 AM
> To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
>
> Eric,
> I would guess that because Dave and Murray funded projects like
HPKB
> and
> RKF which use first (and higher) order logic, that they see an
advantage
> in
> that degree of expressiveness. I know that Jim Hendler (the DAML PM)
has
> always said that "you can do a lot with a little semantics" and
therefore
> I
> think it's fair to paraphrase him in saying that more than DL isn't
> needed.
[ELP] Are we allowed to admit to seeing some validity in someone else's
points in this group;^) This is really noble, Adam, but you shouldn't be
so out of step with the rest of us;^) You should ignore the valid
points, clip them out of your replies and divert attention away from the
valid points by niggling on nits. Or your could blithely, confidently,
and dismissively state facts not in evidence and act like you're exempt
from needing to supply such evidence ;^)
I think I'm more conceptually aligned with Murray and Dave on
> this
> issue.
> But I think we're off getting topic here, conjecturing about what
> different funders may want. To get back on topic, do you prefer
OpenCyc
> to SUMO because it lacks rules? Do you see that as an advantage?
[ELP] I do see the advantage of DL being a much more attainable and much
more immediately useful as a *first release*. The semantic web is
crying out for some solid sharable content description, and as you
pointed out DL is all they can use from us right now. But under that
rationale, we could trim SUMO down to DL.
So as to your first question, no. I prefer OpenCyc because it has a
track record and I have used it productively for six years.
Cheers,
-Eric
>
> Adam
>
> At 09:10 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> >Hi Adam;
> >
> >In my conversations with Dave Gunning and Murray Burke (the DARPA
HPKB
> >program managers) they never let on to a lack of enthusiasm for or
> >confidence in the DL-subset of logic or of Cyc. But you know them
> >better than I do. Did they ever express such feelings in your
hearing?
> >
> >Does one invest in the career of an athlete with an unsound skeleton
> >because of the athlete's musculature? The US army would even reject
> >someone with an unsound skeleton.
> >
> >FWIW,
> >
> >-Eric
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:52 AM
> > > To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > I'm not claiming that OpenCyc isn't a subset, or isn't
consistent.
> >I
> > > am
> > > questioning your line of reasoning that financial support for the
full
> > > product constitutes an endorsement of the subset.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > At 08:15 AM 6/26/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thanks for your thoughts, Adam.
> > > >
> > > >I worked with one of the former Cyclists that excised OpenCyc
from
> > > >full-Cyc. She never gave me the least indication that OpenCyc
was
> > > >anything but a subset.
> > > >
> > > >Are you aware of any reasons that we should suspect that the
subset
> > > >lacks the robustness and soundness of the whole? Can you point
us to
> > > >any full-Cyc axioms that would support such a suspicion?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Best,
> > > >
> > > >-Eric
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:53 PM
> > > > > To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> > > > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric,
> > > > > I agree. The fact that Cyc has been funded for a long time
> > > >certainly
> > > > > gives it some credibility and is one data point in any
decision
> > > >process
> > > > > about which ontology to choose. One might say though that the
> >funding
> > > >has
> > > > > been for a product which includes non-DL axioms, so whether
the
> > > > > consideration of funding history supports OpenCyc or not would
> >still
> > > >be in
> > > > > question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam
> > > > >
> > > > > At 04:43 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:33 PM
> > > > > > > To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> > > > > > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric,
> > > > > > > No one is "censuring" anyone else, but I believe that
> >axioms
> > > >are
> > > > > >needed
> > > > > > > to meet the charter. You don't. I don't know if you're
> >asserting
> > > > > >that
> > > > > > > they're not beneficial though so that could still be a
reason
> >for
> > > > > >choosing
> > > > > > > one "charter compliant" offering over another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >[ELP] I'm participating in this group on my customer's nickel
and
> >am
> > > > > >trying to influence this group in a direction that will
support
> >my
> > > > > >customer's needs. My customer needs a common model for
> >integrating
> > > > > >scads of disparate DB's. This is my agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I learned logic and Prolog nearly two decades ago and
continue to
> > > >revel
> > > > > >in the miracle of writing specifications that are also code.
> >I've
> > > >even
> > > > > >contemplated celebrating Frege's birthday and I glory in what
FOL
> >is
> > > > > >going to do for us in the coming years. But two decades
later,
> >the
> > > > > >marketplace still isn't ready to embrace anything close to
full
> >FOL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I claim, therefore, that a DL-based upper ontology has by far
the
> > > >best
> > > > > >claim on being our initial version-one deliverable. If this
is
> > > >true,
> > > > > >DL-ness is no detriment to being considered as a possible
> > > >starting-point
> > > > > >for our work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If not true, choosing an upper ontology with a *long* track
> >record in
> > > > > >DARPA's marketplace sounds to me like the best foundation on
> >which we
> > > > > >may add non-DL axioms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Your small group has doing something really amazing in
getting
> >the
> > > > > >notice and some degree of blessing from the ontological
> >community.
> > > >But
> > > > > >you haven't paid your dues yet. When DARPA places their
loving
> >arms
> > > > > >around SUMO for a decade or so, let's talk more about why you
> >don't
> > > > > >think OpenCyc would be a good starting point for the SUO's
work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >FWIW,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do agree with you that we should have a charter and
> >follow
> > > >it. I
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > much of the controversy in this group to have at its root
that
> > > > > >different
> > > > > > > groups of people have different goals. Rather than
impeding
> >each
> > > > > >other, I
> > > > > > > think it would be much better to codify charters that
express
> >the
> > > > > >goals of
> > > > > > > a small number of groups and then have this group split
up,
> > > >amicably.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 12:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:01 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: Eric Peterson
> > > > > > > > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eric,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This brings up yet another facet of the objective of
> >achieving
> > > > > > > >consensus,
> > > > > > > > > as it begins from a state of disconsensus, namely,
that
> >many
> > > >of
> > > > > >the
> > > > > > > >words
> > > > > > > > > and phrases of the charter, or scope and purpose
document,
> > > >have
> > > > > >just
> > > > > > > >as
> > > > > > > > > many different ways of being read from different
> >perspectives
> > > >in
> > > > > >this
> > > > > > > > > (dis-)community as any of the other words and phrases
that
> >we
> > > >have
> > > > > > > > > to discuss in the content-oriented and method-oriented
> > > >subtasks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[ELP] Language can be tightened down. Clarity can
certainly
> >be
> > > >an
> > > > > > > >iterative process sometimes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And though referring to the prior compact certainly
helps
> >to
> > > > > > > > > reduce uncertainty from time to time, it cannot, in
the
> > > > > > > > > absence of consensual interpretations, achiving which
> > > > > > > > > is a part of the original problem, reduce it all that
> > > > > > > > > much, nor ever absolutely, when it comes to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[ELP] Aren't you arguing against all codified law and
> >governance?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All subcommunities, some of the time, and some
> > > > > > > > > subcommunities, all of the time, would like
> > > > > > > > > to appoint themselves the sole-sufficient
> > > > > > > > > interpreters of the charter, but there
> > > > > > > > > is no reason to expect that they will
> > > > > > > > > happen in a free and open society.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[ELP] If it is a point that really matters, we can vote
on
> >it.
> > > >And
> > > > > >all
> > > > > > > >our votes need to be reflected somewhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >But when calling for concreteness and specificity in
> >criticisms
> > > >of
> > > > > >Cyc,
> > > > > > > >I was expecting references to more ontologically
egregious
> >sins
> > > >than
> > > > > >not
> > > > > > > >having SUMO's way-cool axioms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >With Adam, I was simply making the observation that it
didn't
> > > >seem
> > > > > >fair
> > > > > > > >to me to publicly censure Cycorp for being charter
compliant
> > > >under a
> > > > > > > >reasonable interpretation of the Charter. I certainly
wasn't
> > > > > >attempting
> > > > > > > >to Mirandize him prior to incarceration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So what Jim said initially continues to be apt.
> > > > > > > > > The question that remains is how to achieve this
> > > > > > > > > consensus in a way that is genuine and not forced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[ELP] Jon, you seem to want to reinvent long-standing
methods
> >of
> > > > > > > >committee organization. I don't have time to read your
> >papers on
> > > > > > > >consensus building. I prefer starting with Roberts and
> >fixing it
> > > > > >when
> > > > > > > >it breaks. That is already our de facto practice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >BTW, where are you getting the "F"-word from in your last
> > > >paragraph?
> > > > > >A
> > > > > > > >charter is consensus and far from force.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >FWIW,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-Eric
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jon Awbrey
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Moreover,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was told that the charter was a passed motion. If
so,
> >it
> > > >is
> > > > > > > >binding
> > > > > > > > > > and is amendable only by a 2/3 majority (RRO 10th
> >Edition p.
> > > >12,
> > > > > > > >line
> > > > > > > > > 25).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:54 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: SUO: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Consensus is what matters. The PAR Scope and
Purpose
> > > >really
> > > > > > > >doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > matter that much. It shouldn't prevent us from
doing
> > > > > >anything, or
> > > > > > > > > > > force us to do anything else. If and when we
finish a
> > > > > >document
> > > > > > > > > > > with enough consensus to pass an IEEE ballot, if
it
> > > >doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > match the Scope and Purpose, we simple amend it or
> >submit
> > > > > > > > > > > a new one.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jim
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o