RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Dear Adam,
See comments 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: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: 02 July 2003 20:16
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Ian Niles
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> > > Do you see that as being problematic? That facts are true at
> > > one point in
> > > time and not at another does not seem problematic to me.
> >
> >MW: The issue is what the facts are about. That is what is true
> >for possibly a period in time, and that is what I found troubling
> >for several years when our ontology was 3.5D and not at all
> >dissimilar in structure to yours.
>
> I guess I don't find it troubling that facts are true at some
> point in time
> and may not be at another. Maybe what your concerned about
> is what would a
> fact be if it were reified? I'm not sure, but then SUMO
> doesn't reify
> them, so it's not a problem.
MW: Well now I would always worry about whether there was
something that should be reified. I have to admit that your
lack of concern over such things causes me further concern.
>
> > But then I like to know what
> >I am fundamentally relying on, and I think it is reasonable if
> >you are expecting people to use your ontology that they should be
> >able to know what they are fundamentally relying on.
>
> If they want to know what they are relying on, ultimately
> they will have to
> read the axioms. A label can be evocative, but rarely complete.
MW: I doubt if there are many concepts in SUMO that are wholly
defined by their axioms (i.e. are derived). A label is also not
much use. Hopefully the definitions provide a verbal ostension.
>
> > > I can see that it would make a difference in the
> organization of an
> > > ontology. But I don't think it's been shown that this has
> > > big practical
> > > import. Either way is fine I'm sure in practice. We can
> > > pick one and move
> > > on, as we did in SUMO and you did in EPISTLE.
> >
> >MW: Except we picked 3.5D like you (without being aware of 4D) and
> >only after several years finding difficulties with that, and
> then taking
> >the time to make a proper comparison did we decide to switch to 4D.
> >I think this approach of comparative ontology is a better approach if
> >you think a decision is necessary (which I accept it is for
> a cannonical
> >ontology, but not in a wider lattice of theories). Picking one and
> >moving on is I think to be deprecated.
>
> Well, I'd have to disagree. That 3d and 4d are still debated in the
> philosophical literature leads me in part to believe that
> both approaches
> are fine and each have their respective benefits on
> particular boundary
> cases. The other aspect that gives me confidence is that no
> one has shown
> a practical problem (in axioms, not in informal English) with
> the current
> approach.
MW: Talk and action are not the same. And it is not so much a matter of
problems, as unecessary complication. Would you buy a car with bad
ergonomics when you had a choice?
>
> Adam
>
>