Re: SUO: Architecture of an intelligent ontology development algorithm
John,
I disagree with your points, some of which are flatly inaccurate, but am
reluctant to enter into another exchange so I'll choose not to respond further.
Adam
At 10:24 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Tom and Adam,
>
>What Adam wrote gets to the heart of some issues that have
>been debated on this list since it began nearly 3 years ago:
>
>AP> .... The combination that SUMO has taken of top
>>down (informed by past research in AI, philosophy and logic) and bottom
>>up (driven by development of numerous domain ontologies, and the WordNet
>>mapping project) is typical of any large, quality software engineering
>>project. The "right" approach, if there is one, is certainly a balance
>>of these extremes.
>
>Some parts of SUMO, Cyc, and Dolce have been influenced by
>applications. But the framework of upper-level categories
>of each of them has been derived from the top-down. No
>methodology such as Formal Concept Analysis (which is included
>as one component of the IF Framework) has ever been applied
>to derive the upper levels from the lower levels. The global
>structure of each of them has been legislated from the top down.
>
>AP> I also would echo your comments on evolution. An infinite (or even
>>large) set of ontologies to choose from is not a standard ontology.
>
>Correct. What we need is modular standard that relates every possible
>ontology (including Cyc, Sumo, Dolce, and many others) to one another
>and to the modules from which they were derived. That is the project
>we approved in May.
>
>AP> This retreads old ground, but it's important for any newcomers to this
>>list to understand that while the bulk of discussion here is on topics
>>unrelated to the work of creating an upper ontology, plenty of folks are
>>quietly building, distributing and using formal ontologies that one day
>>are likely to become de facto standards, even if largely ignored by this group.
>
>Adam, what conceivable evidence do you have for the claim that
>multiple independent efforts can ever or have ever or will ever
>lead to a plurality of "de facto" standards?
>
>TJ>> As to an upper ontology, I do not think that waiting for natural
>>>selection,
>>>operating on a pool of candidates into which some process (analogous to
>>>genetic mutation) introduces novel candidates or candidate-components, is
>>>likely to succeed in any time frame meaningful to us.
>
>I agree with Tom. Adam is the one who is waiting for natural
>selection to operate on that plurality.
>
>TJ>> I think we need an
>>>intentional, purposive design, tested for adequacy at each stage of its
>>>evolution, against a wide range of low level ontologies taken from a diverse
>>>set of concerns represented by working databases in various areas of
>>>academic research and business function.
>
>What you are suggesting is similar to a motion, which I made
>in April and which was approved in May. At the end of this note
>is a version of that motion followed by another discussion with
>Adam about ways of going about implementing that motion.
>
>Adam, however, did not want to be "forced" [Adam's word] to
>collaborate with the other groups mentioned in the combined
>motion. He submitted a separate motion for an independent
>project on Sumo. Adam's motion was defeated, and he withdrew
>to work on his own approach with his own group.
>
>John Sowa
>_______________________________________________________
>
>Source: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09372.html
> Motion for a joint SUO project
>
>Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
>Working Group commence work on a project to develop
>a standard based on three starting candidates,
>IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
>
> (1) The development process shall include a
> collaboration of members of all three groups
> and other SUO participants to determine how each
> of the three starting candidates can complement
> and support the contributions of the others.
>
> (2) The results shall include a library of modules
> derived from OpenCyc, SUMO, and/or other sources.
> Each module shall consist of closely related
> axioms and definitions for some aspect of a
> standard upper ontology.
>
> (3) The standard shall include the specification
> of a methodology for testing the modules for
> consistency, relating them to one another in
> a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> new module that is larger and more specialized
> than the modules from which it was derived.
>_______________________________________________________
>
>Following is a later note, in which I replied to
>Adam's desire to "divide" the groups because he did
>not want to be "forced" to collaborate:
>
>Source: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09370.html
>
>Adam,
>
>I'm glad that you like the proposed three stages.
>For reference, I'm repeating them at the end
>of this note.
>
> > This sounds reasonable. But I don't think we
> > need to go to the trouble of making a motion on it.
> > It's enough for now for us to agree it's a good
> > idea. The only motion we need to make is to divide
> > the groups for now. Can we proceed with that?
>
>The groups are already divided. We are now at
>stage 1. In an earlier note, you said that SUMO
>was quite stable and usable as is. Therefore,
>there is no need for a motion to do anything
>more with SUMO by itself.
>
>The same is true of OpenCyc. It is also quite
>stable, and nothing more needs to be done with
>it by itself. If the Cyc group as a whole
>wants to extend OpenCyc, they can do so by
>just contributing more of the Cyc knowledge base.
>
>And the same is true of IFF. As Robert has
>said, the theory is quite complete right now.
>
>The main task now is to demonstrate that SUMO
>and OpenCyc are both useful and complementary
>contributions toward an SUO standard and that
>tools and methodology based on IFF can be
>usefully applied to organize and relate
>both of them and any additional content
>anyone may contribute.
>
>Therefore, there is no point in a motion to
>divide anything. And if we all agree that
>it is a good idea for the SUO to work on stage 2
>in order to produce the results of stage 3, then
>lets formulate a motion to do so.
>
>John
>________________________________________________
>
> Stage one. Three independent projects: SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and IFF.
>
> Stage two. Stock taking, analysis, and testing:
>
> a) Study the commonalities and overlaps
> between SUMO and OpenCyc and the
> possible contribution of further
> content from other sources.
>
> b) Analysis of possible inconsistencies
> in the various modules that make up
> SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
>
> c) Development and testing of the IFF
> theory and methodology on the modules
> of SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
> Further refinement and clarification
> of IFF and how it can assist in the
> analysis, testing, and combination
> of modules from various sources,
> especially SUMO and IFF.
>
> Stage three. Results:
>
> a) A library of modules derived from SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and/or other sources;
>
> b) Organization of the library into a
> generalization hierarchy (lattice),
> certification of the consistency of each
> individual module, statements of known
> inconsistencies between modules, and
> a history of testing of each module.
>
> c) A methodology based on IFF and/or other
> theoretical and computational techniques
> that enables different modules to be
> ordered within the generalization hierarchy,
> combined with one another, tested for
> consistency of each possible combination,
> and accommodated to new modules derived
> from independently developed sources.
>
>This proposal allows changes in any or all of the
>three starting projects. It doesn't commit to
>a total adoption of everything from any one of them,
>and it assumes that each contribution from any one
>will have to survive the analysis and testing done
>in stage 2. It also allows contributions from other
>sources (including further work done by the same
>people who initiated the first three projects).