RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
Ian's assertion that SUMO was generally 3d was one of those places.
Adam
At 08:28 AM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Would it be possible to point to the places where the "general principles
>and guidelines" have been communicated?
>
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
>Sent: 02 July 2003 23:43
>To: Chris Partridge
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>Chris,
> I'm saying that general principles and guidelines exist and have been
>communicated, but the axioms are the final arbiter, because simple labels
>and summaries are imperfect.
>
>Adam
>
>At 11:29 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >I do not understand your reply.
> >
> >Are you saying that there are no general principles that govern SUMO - and
> >you have to learn every axiom to get a grasp of what is going on?
> >
> >Surely that cannot be true.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> >Sent: 02 July 2003 23:15
> >To: Chris Partridge
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >At 11:04 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > >Adam,
> > >
> > >I can appreciate your frustration - but I think it is missing the issue.
> > >
> > >The first stage is to get an overview, a context. When this has been
> > >attempted for SUMO - it has not gone smoothly. E.g. is it 3D or 4D? We
>are
> > >told 3D. We start looking at the detail of the axioms and they seem to
> > >suggest otherwise. A number of us ask questions - and we still have not
>got
> > >to the bottom of this. We are stuck at the first stage.
> >
> >That's because you're not looking at the axioms. It's unsurprising that
> >the general-purpose and imprecise labels don't match the axioms. You've
> >gotten an overview label - it's 3D - now look at the details to get a real
> >understanding of the formal model. That you find some things that support
> >a 4d view should also not be surprising.
> >
> >
> > >So it is not a simple matter of division of time - but one of a natural
> > >progression. If one gets stuck at the first stage, then one will spend
>most
> > >of one's time at that stage. One should not expect anything different.
> >
> >Then don't get stuck at the 50,000 foot level. Do some work on the ground.
> >
> > >Also, there is another important point. We want to understand the impact
>of
> > >different choices, given that we have a potential range of ontologies to
> > >'merge'. So, it becomes useful to see how the ontologies have implemented
> > >the choices.
> >
> >Indeed, but the only way to do that is look at the axioms, preferably with
> >a theorem prover on hand. Try some proofs and see how they come
> >out. Change an axiom and see what that does to your
> >conclusions. Otherwise you'll never understand the impact of your choices
> >any more than you would writing software and never compiling or executing
> >it.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > >Regards,
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > >Sent: 02 July 2003 22:44
> > >To: mail@chrispartridge.net
> > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris,
> > > Yes, labels and summaries can help, and they can be useful context
>for
> > >proceeding towards deeper understanding. It's just that the balance is
>off
> > >here. If we spent 10% of the time on the list discussing general
> > >principles, and 90% of the time working on embodying those principles in
> > >axioms, then the balance would probably be right. Unfortunately, right
>now
> > >the ratio is something like 99.999% and 0.001%. After several years,
>it's
> > >time that most comments reflect concrete additions or changes to a
> > >particular document, and not high-level discussion.
> > >
> > >Adam
> > >
> > >At 10:33 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > >Adam,
> > > >
> > > >I beleive we have covered this ground before.
> > > >
> > > >It is much easier to review something as large as SUMO if there is a
> > >general
> > > >principle to guide you through it. So, for example, Nicola made the
> >similar
> > > >point about understanding the choices that motivate an ontology in his
> >last
> > > >email.
> > > >
> > > >And, for a SUMO example, Ian has in a recent email effectively said
>that
> > > >SUMO is eternalist rather than presentist - making no distinction
>between
> > > >the tenses. This is a useful and helpful architectural principle to
> >know -
> > > >and helps us to understand SUMO better. It illuminates a raft of
>axioms.
> > > >
> > > >If there is a similar principle relating to 3D and 4D - this would also
> >be
> > > >helpful. It is also not an uncommon principle to consider in
>ontologies -
> > > >e.g. Nicola's DOLCE is explicitly 3D and Matthew's EPSITLE is
>explicitly
> > >4D.
> > > >
> > > >The problem, for me at least, is that trying to get to these principles
> >in
> > > >SUMO is like pulling teeth. And without the context they provide it is
> >very
> > > >difficult to "get a mutual understanding, much less agreement". Getting
> > > >"down to details and comment[ing] on particular terms and axioms" is
>not
> >an
> > > >easy route to understanding if the underlying principles are not clear.
> > > >
> > > >This is not to decry the value of the axioms etc., looking at them is a
> > > >natural next step once one has some grasp of the context.
> > > >
> > > >In this regard, ontologies are no different from any other large system
> >of
> > > >knowledge.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: adampease@earthlink.net [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 20:19
> > > >To: Chris Partridge
> > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; Patrick Cassidy
> > > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Chris,
> > > >
> > > >At 06:40 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Adam, (Pat,)
> > > > >
> > > > >In response to Ian's claim that you refer to ("I think Ian commented
> > > >earlier
> > > > >that he considers SUMO basically 3D.") we entered into a discussion
>in
> > > >which
> > > > >it seemed that he was actually commiting to a 4D position for SUMO (a
> > >point
> > > > >Matthew West has also made) - though whether Ian accepts this is not
> > > > >entirely clear as he has not answered the last message.
> > > > >
> > > > >My personal suspicion is that concern about these architectural
> >issues -
> > > > >e.g. making a clean choice on 3D and 4D - was not considered in the
> > >design
> > > > >of SUMO.
> > > > >
> > > > >There seem to me two possible positions here.
> > > > >1) An architecural approach that makes choices about 3D and 4D (and
> > > > >eternalism and presentism, etc.) is not required - and was not taken.
> > > > >2) It is required and was taken.
> > > > >
> > > > >If SUMO adopted 1), then it would be interesting to known what braod
> > > > >principles architected it - if any (apart form Ian's naturalism
>:-) ).
> > > >
> > > >I'd say #1. But really, I think this whole conversation is off track.
> >If
> > > >we are to focus on a document, let's get down to details and comment on
> > > >particular terms and axioms. We could talk forever at an informal
>level
> > > >and never get mutual understanding, much less agreement. "Let us
> > > >calculate!"
> > > >
> > > >Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > >[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > >Adam Pease
> > > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 02:22
> > > > >To: Patrick Cassidy
> > > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > >Subject: Re: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Pat,
> > > > >
> > > > >At 05:27 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Adam,
> > > > > > Concerning your statement:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That entities do not change their class membership over time,
> > > > > > > and that classes themselves are reserved for those things which
>do
> > > > > > > not change, is an important guideline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, a clarification: Do you consider SUMO 3D or 4D or both?
> > > > >
> > > > >I think Ian commented earlier that he considers SUMO basically 3D.
> >That
> > > > >sounds right to me, although you're welcome to ask him for
>elaboration.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The specific question related to your statement above is
> > > > > >whether roles (student, dentist) must therefore be treated
> > > > > >only as relations, or whether they can also be classes.
> > > > > >The latter would seem to require that membership change
> > > > > >over time.
> > > > >
> > > > >Those sorts of roles have been treated as properties. Take a look at
> > > > >SocialRole
> > > >
> > > ><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Soci
> al> Ro> le>&>skb=SUMO>
> > > > >
> > > > > > If roles cannot be classes, then do you consider SUMO
> > > > > >classes like "Food" and "BiologicallyActiveSubstance"
> > > > > >as *not* being roles which might change for a particular object?
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm guessing that you're concerned about cases like the same
>substance
> > > > >being used as a floor wax or a dessert topping, but as I see it, it
> >would
> > > > >still be a food, just as a table could be used as a chair, or a TV as
>a
> > > > >hammer, but they would still be tables and TVs, respectively.
> > > > >
> > > > >Adam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pat
> > > > > >
> > > > > >=============================================
> > > > > >Patrick Cassidy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> > > > > >735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> > > > > >Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >internet: cassidy@micra.com
> > > > > >=============================================