RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
I'm getting lost as to the point of this. We tried to provide general
guidelines, but if you want to get into the details you'll have to look at
the axioms. If you have a specific point on a axiom you think is
incorrect, or a term that you think needs to be added, I'd be glad to help.
Adam
At 10:15 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>See one of my last emails to Ian where I refered and copied out the contents
>of this entry and noted it applied to Time Positions and not to *Objects*.
>
>Copied again:
>(documentation temporalPart "The temporal analogue of the spatial &%part
>predicate. (&%temporalPart ?POS1 ?POS2) means that &%TimePosition ?POS1 is
>part of &%TimePosition ?POS2. Note that since &%temporalPart is a
>&%ReflexiveRelation every &%TimePostion is a &%temporalPart of itself.")
>
>To repeat, my question was:
>
> >So you are under the impression that SUMO can talk about temporal parts of
> >objects?
> >Maybe you can point to the axioms that support this.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
>Sent: 03 July 2003 22:04
>To: Chris Partridge
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>Chris,
> See &%temporalPart
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=temporalPar
>t&skb=SUMO>.
>
>Adam
>
>At 09:45 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >I too find this a bit tedious, as the 3d / 4D debate is well worn - it just
> >seems that people rehash it here - and seem to be confused about the
>issues.
> >
> >You have said "Aspects of 4d, such as the ability to state temporal parts,
> >are very useful, and clearly compatible with other 3d-ish aspects of SUMO,
> >so they are included."
> >
> >So you are under the impression that SUMO can talk about temporal part of
> >objects?
> >Maybe you can point to the axioms that support this.
> >
> >Or what did you mean?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> >Sent: 03 July 2003 21:13
> >To: Chris Partridge
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> >Chris,
> > Sigh. Let me recap, and then I hope we can close out this thread. I
> >believe that 3d and 4d are not incompatible. See
> ><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/dialog-3d-4d.html> for a
> >discussion of this. I agree with Fritz' position.
> > Folks asked us to say whether SUMO was 3d or 4d, even though we
> >hesitated to take that blunt a position, since I (and I think Ian), do not
> >believe that the two are incompatible. But forced to say that SUMO is
> >principally one or the other, we said 3d. Aspects of 4d, such as the
> >ability to state temporal parts, are very useful, and clearly compatible
> >with other 3d-ish aspects of SUMO, so they are included.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >At 07:05 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > >Adam,
> > >
> > >This is odd.
> > >
> > >I have checked Ch.6 - where were you looking - the text seems a model of
> > >clarity on this.
> > >
> > >Loux.
> > >4D = perdurantist = has temporal parts.
> > >3D = endurantist = exists wholly and completely at each of several
> >different
> > >times.
> > >
> > >SUMO processes have temporal parts (see documentation/axioms)
> > >
> > >Ergo
> > >
> > >?? SUMO processes are *3D* ????, or
> > >SUMO processes are 4D
> > >
> > >Isn't the answer obvious?
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > >Sent: 03 July 2003 18:46
> > >To: Chris Partridge
> > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > >Subject: 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
> &n> am> e=> 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
> > > > > > > > > > >=============================================