RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
Ian's definition seems consistent with my reading of Loux, but this just
points to the difficulty with text, rather than dealing with the axioms.
Adam
At 06:34 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I suspect mails have crossed - have a look at my recent reply to Ian.
>
>To repeat the main points.
>
>Ian's 'definition' - which you quote - is unusual. The SUMO processes are 4D
>in the normal sense of being temporally extended, with temporal parts (as
>the SUMO documentation/axioms confirm). Consult e.g. Loux metaphysics (or
>Barry Smith's BFO) for more - or a Google search. It seems odd that a
>temporally extended object should be said to be 3D. It would make sense to
>stick to the common usages here.
>
>Also, there is some confusion as how "being completely present at any moment
>of their
>existence" has been implemented in the axioms. I beleive Ian is getting back
>to us on that.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
>Sent: 03 July 2003 18:22
>To: mail@chrispartridge.net
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>Chris,
> I don't see any lack of accuracy in Ian's assertions. The label of "3d"
>is imprecise, as it refers to a wide range of approaches to modeling
>change. Those approaches have in common the high level notion
>"...[assuming] a categorial distinction between objects and processes, and
>[regarding] the former as being completely present at any moment of their
>existence rather than as space-time worms."
>
>Adam
>
>
>At 06:14 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >Surely there is more than a section in the middle of an old email (where
>the
> >original assertion is made).
> >
> >I agree with you that things like Ian's assertions are general principles
> >and important for understanding SUMO (and how to construct the eventual
> >SUO).
> >
> >My concern, as expressed in my emails, was that the this assertion seems
> >inconsistent with the axioms. And that a more accurate statement would be
> >helpful for those people trying to understand SUMO and evalute its strategy
> >in the context of building a SUO.
> >
> >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: 03 July 2003 16:12
> >To: Chris Partridge
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: 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=
> So> ci> 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
> > > > > > > >=============================================