RE: SUO: Unanimous consent
Dear Jay,
Why don't we see where this goes.
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: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> Sent: 29 August 2003 17:04
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Mike Pool; Pierre Grenon
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Unanimous consent
>
>
> Re: the discussion of acceptability of SUO starter documents,
> and the lack
> of criteria for same. (And indications of where people think
> they're going,
> and how to get there.)
>
> I've been browsing Matthew's contribution. It presents an
> interesting and
> very possibly fruitful terminology (judging by the examples
> and informal
> discussion available in the browser), but it does at this
> point lack (as
> much as I've been able to see so far -- please correct me if
> I'm wrong)
> some features which would clarify how the SUO group (in part
> or whole) is to
> tackle it (or other proposals) as a working document -- that
> is, how to
> proceed to develop it.
MW: You seem to be saying here that the feature of the material
proposed that is missing is how to proceed to develop it. Or do
you mean that there are other features that are missing that mean
that it is not clear how to develop it.
>
> Since we currently lack them, this is an opportunity for the group to
> formulate some at least minimally necessary criteria for
> acceptability of
> officially sanctioned starter documents. I suggest, to begin
> with, that
> 1)
> some formal specification of the language of an ontology
> should be required,
MW: I agree.
MW: This is available - at least sufficient to build compilers.
EXPRESS is specified in ISO 10303-11.
> and 2) at least some formal axiomatization of content should
> be required,
> together with an explicit indication, even if informal, of how
> axiomatization is intended to be done.
MW: There is some formal axiomatisation. Each line on the diagrams
represents an axiom, some other marks do too. I can appreciate you
may have as much difficulty determining what they mean as I do with
KIF. Don't expect sympathy though.
MW: But let us try to quantify this:
1. How many concepts should a starter document have:
a) as a minimum?
b) as a maximum?
2. What ratio of axioms to concepts should a starter document
contain?
> Finally, 3) that some
> characterization of the logical system or systems intended to
> be employed in
> automated reasoning over the ontology should be given.
MW: An EXPRESS based system ensures that the axioms specified are
conformed to by data sets that claim to be models of the ontology.
Not sure if that counts as automated reasoning. If not, why is
automated reasoning a necessary purpose? I can appreciate it might
be where your interest lies.
MW: As it happens my intention would be to develop the material
from something that had been initially developed for one purpose,
to something that had wider applicability, but I don't see why
it should be necessary to complete that before it can be a starter
document (makes an oxymoron of the "starter" part to me).
>
> Each of the 3 criteria above (particularly the formal
> aspects) will have to
> be met at some point anyway, if a formal upper ontology is to
> fit into, say,
> the IFF framework, or into a lattice of theories. Fleshing
> out even such
> rough criteria as the above, and a minimal degree of
> completeness required
> for them, will itself take a bit of work. But lacking such
> criteria, I don't
> see how the group is to proceed to resolve subjective "conflicting
> intuitions", such as have just come up in this thread.
MW: I think you are right as far as a finished document is concerned,
but I do not see why starter documents should leap fully formed into
the fray. In fact I think that is even a bad thing, since it means
that there will have been significant investment in the document that
will mean that there is significant resistance to making changes,
especially ones that go to the root of the document. I think we have
seen evidence of this already.
MW: On the other hand, if you take a more evolutionary approach to
development, then there is the opportunity to discuss various issues
at the appropriate level, and before it is effectively set in concrete
and becomes a "take it or leave it" proposition.
>
> Or, alternatively, since Matthew was originally asking how to proceed,
> perhaps the group could distinguish a useful notion of
> increasing levels of
> completion of starter documents, such as: terminological, axiomatic,
> metalogically specified.
MW: I certainly think it is useful to classify an ontology, as I and Jon
have mentioned, for different purposes you need different levels of
axiomatisation. John Sowa has also talked about different sorts of
reasoning being deployed against different sorts of axioms as I recall,
even within an ontology.
MW: I detect that there is no sense of progression here. In ISO there
is a clear progression. It goes:
New Work Item (NWI)
A statement of intent and perhaps some initial material, but not
normally technically complete. This is approved by the committee
that develops it.
Working Draft (WD)
Some draft material for review. Not necessarily technically complete.
You can have a series of these. These are
reviewed by the team developing it.
Committee Draft (CD)
A (nominally) technically complete document. Though most I have seen
have been typically 90% complete. This to be reviewed formally by the
committee that prepared it. Voted on by National Standards Bodies.
Again there can be a series of these if there is not enough consensus
to move to the next stage.
Draft International Standard (DIS)
This must be technically complete, and jump through a lot of hoops to
check e.g. the editorial quality. It is the published by ISO for public
review. Voted on by National Standards Bodies. Again a series is
possible.
Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
Only required if there is a "no" vote against the DIS (from any country
rather than a "no" result of the vote).
International Standard
Any editorial issues from the FDIS are resolved and the document
published.
MW: I think it is important to be clear about what stage you are at,
but what I am hearing from some people is that you should necessarily
start at around the CD level. I think that is a bad idea.
MW: I think it would be good to establish some process like this with
associated deliverables. We could adopt the same levels as ISO (but
rename them) as a start for this.
>
> Jay
>
>
>