RE: SUO: RE: Problems in SUMO
Dear Ian,
Just one point from below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 30 June 2003 18:38
> To: 'John F. Sowa'; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Problems in SUMO
>
>
> John,
>
> Some comments below.
>
> -Ian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 6:04 PM
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> > Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Problems in SUMO
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Matthew,
> >
> > That is a reasonable approach when you are trying to specify
> > a particular way of thinking. But it is not appropriate for
> > a standard that is supposed to accommodate anybody's way
> > of thinking about any subject whatever:
>
> I didn't realize that this was our goal, and I don't think
> that I endorse
> it. As you see it, should our eventual standard ontology
> allow meaningful
> representations of round squares and colorless green ideas that sleep
> furiously?
MW: In my experience it is not possible to prevent people saying daft
things (though I agree you don't need to worry about any daft things
people can't say). I am sure SUMO will allow some daft things to be
said.
>
> >
> > > Slightly to my surprise I find myself on Ian's side in some
> > > of this discussion! I think a key point is that he is not
> > > trying to create a box in which everyone can put their ideas
> > > the way they see them, but they should be able to put them in
> > > in the say SUMO sees them (I understand this because the
> > > EPISTLE Core Model has the same objective - but with another
> > > viewpoint).
> >
> > A standard for ontology should not impose any constraints on
> > what people think, but it may impose constraints on how people
> > express what they think.
> >
> > That is effectively what natural languages do: they provide
> > a vocabulary, syntax, and semantics that allow people to say
> > anything they please.
>
> Anything they please? How would one express "television set"
> or "microwave
> oven" non-ostensively in Ancient Greek, for example? If we
> really imagine
> that the ontology we're creating here isn't specifically
> geared to the needs
> of twentieth-century, industrialized societies, then I have completely
> misunderstood what we're up to.
>
> >The only problem is that NLs are not
> > efficiently computable with today's technology. So we need
> > to provide a more computble system that is highly expressive,
> > but interpretable by the kinds of technology we know how
> > to implement today.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>