Dear John, (01)
This sounds like a good idea, and it may be a good direction
to go in, but ... (02)
The level above whether you are 3D or 4D is about foundations.
What set theory do we use, or do we use Category theory or
Type Theory. And what about number theory (we do want numbers don't
we?) The reality that I see is that you are no more
certain or free of controversy at what ever level you operate
at. (03)
Having said that I do agree with what you are saying about weaker
axiomatisation. Strong axiomatisation nearly always has exceptions.
I also think that serious automated reasoning is some way off. We
still need to learn to walk, and understand how that can add value,
rather than focussing on the end goal as if it were just a step
away. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (06)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 25 November 2005 07:22
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantic Interoperability: Sowa'sCollection
> ofModules
>
>
> Cory,
>
> I'd like to emphasize that my proposal is completely
> compatible with a very precise specification.
>
> > I would like to follow up on the precision line
> > of thought. As one who generally likes precision
> > (or at least more than most), I have to admit to
> > not having achieve it to the extent that would be
> > required to some of the goals attributed to Ontologies.
>
> What I am recommending is that the general-purpose
> framework avoid *detail*. Everything that is represented
> would be precise, but would omit a lot of detail.
>
> > In general, compatibility between systems is achieved
> > with interaction, negotiation and sometimes mutual adaptation.
> > Expecting that a set of specifications are going to be
> > sufficiently precise, detailed, sufficient and contextual
> > to allow for autonomous adaptation is hard to accept.
>
> I agree. And for *some* applications all the detail is
> essential. I don't recommend that it be thrown away.
>
> What I do recommend is that the general ontology contain only
> a precise definition of the minimal assumptions that are
> commonly accepted for the various categories. That policy
> permits anyone to add as much detail as they like. But
> it would also allow anyone with any specialized need to
> add idiosyncratic axioms that nobody else would agree to.
> All of the perspectives would agree on the minimal common
> content, but they could diverge on the details.
>
> Instead of saying it is vague or imprecise, it would be more
> accurate to say that I am recommending an *underspecified*
> general ontology, which could be specialized in different
> ways for different purposes.
>
> > For example, if a set of interfaces were mapped to something
> > like wordnet, it is easy to see how tools would help the
> > human make connections between interfaces by matching
> > the concepts. If it were correct 75% of the time - that
> > would be a big win!
>
> What I am suggesting is something like a corrected WordNet --
> i.e., with a more accurate and consistent treatment of the
> type-subtype, type-instance, and whole-part relations.
> It would be 100% correct *all the time* for what it says,
> but it would not make any commitment on any controversial
> issue.
>
> > ... as well as the capability to "ground" domain concepts
> > in ONE OR MORE "hubs", like wordnet or even Cyc.
>
> Instead of calling it a "hub", I would call it a framework.
> It would provide a placeholder for all the terminology or
> vocabulary that anyone might want to add to it. It could
> in fact become as big (in terms of number of entries) as
> the OED together with the union of all the specialized
> vocabularies anyone would like to add.
>
> But I want to emphasize that this framework would be much
> less detailed in its axiomatization than Cyc. It would
> be more like a precisely defined and corrected WordNet
> extended with many additional vocabularies.
>
> As a precise, bu underspecified framework, it would be equally
> suitable for a 3-dimensional view of space with a separate time
> dimension or for a 4-dimensional view of space-time. It would
> be equally suitable for an Aristotelian view of substance or
> a Whiteheadian view of process. It could be combined with a
> commonsense ontology or with any of the latest results of
> modern physics. You could use it with situation calculus or
> with pi calculus, as you prefer. It would be completely
> neutral with regard to any of these options.
>
> Many of us had been participating in the SUO (Standard Upper
> Ontology) project for over five years, and we never made any
> progress in resolving these controversies. If we insist on
> producing a hub, or an upper level, or whatever you want to
> call it, that takes one position or the other on any of these
> controversies, we'll go on for another five years without
> reaching a consensus.
>
> Therefore, I recommend that we exclude from the framework any
> axiom or assumption that is in any way controversial. It would
> be very precise for what it says -- much more so than WordNet --
> but underspecified. As a framework, it would provide placeholders
> for adding whatever specialized microtheories anyone would care
> to add. Those microtheories could be added at any level from
> top to bottom or in the middle.
>
> With such a framework, we could make progress. Without it, we
> could end up with another five years of wrangling over subtle
> principles, theories, and distinctions of physics, philosophy,
> linguistics, and semiotics -- as we have seen with the SUO project.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|