Dear John, (01)
This sounds OK by me. It is actually close to what we have done
in ISO 15926 (except for enforcing a 4D ontology - which was
deliberate) it is trivial to remove that constraint. (02)
One question, you said: (03)
> In any case, I used the term "syllogism" to indicate the
> very limited level of logical expressivity required for
> the core UF. I would assume that the tools used to support
> UF would enforce the distinction between types and instances. (04)
How and why would you expect them to enforce this distinction? (05)
I'm not even sure this is appropriate. (06)
Regards (07)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (08)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 25 November 2005 14:41
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantic Interoperability: Sowa'sCollection
> ofModules
>
>
> Dear Matthew and Barry,
>
> Let me start with Matthew's remark, which gets to the
> heart of my proposal:
>
> MW> 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.
>
> For the past five years on SUO list, the most heated
> arguments have been about foundations. Therefore, I
> propose that we eliminate *all* foundations. The type
> Set and the type Number, will indeed be in the unified
> framework (which I'll refer to as UF), but neither
> Peano's axioms nor the axioms of any version of set
> theory will be in UF.
>
> The point is that UF is primarily intended as a framework
> for communication among potentially (or actually) incompatible
> systems. The major inconsistencies arise at the level of
> axioms, which none of these systems would accept from one
> another. But they can usually accept lower-level facts
> without creating any conflict.
>
> Therefore, UF should be very rich in types, but very, very
> poor in axioms. But any serious inferencing (which may be
> logic based, statistical, computational, or whatever) will
> require much more. But every system that adds more does
> so in ways that are incompatible with some other system.
>
> Any axiom that causes a conflict with any major system shall
> be deleted from UF, but there may also be a large number of
> microtheories (as in Cyc) or modules (as in the following
> remark) which could be very rich in axioms expressed in
> very rich versions of logic.
>
> BS> BFO has two modules, one 3-D (defined for representing
> > continuants), one 4-D (designed for representing processes),
> > together with relations between them. Users are welcome
> > to use either both modules together, or just one of them,
> > according to preference.
>
> That's an excellent principle. Any axiom that is deleted
> from UF will not go away, but it will be available in
> modules or microtheories that could be used as needed
> by various systems. In effect, the topmost levels of most
> ontologies are the most controversial. Therefore, UF
> should have a highly impoverished top level.
>
> As I said before, UF should resemble a cleaned up version
> of WordNet with all the errors corrected and with a major
> influx of new vocabularies. But nobody likes the WordNet
> top level, and most people who use WN ignore it. Therefore,
> UF should have an extremely simplified top level, with all
> the complexity moved to modules or microtheories.
>
> Basic principle: It should be possible to import any
> subset of UF into any of the major systems such as Cyc,
> SUMO, Dolce, etc., without any fear of inconsistencies
> caused by conflicting axioms. It may be necessary to
> do some alignment of terminology, but after that has
> been done, the axioms should not conflict.
>
> BS> ... though we will need a bit more
> > than the syllogism if we are to deal adequately with the
> > distinction between instances (Toronto) and types (city).
> > The fact that this distinction has not been dealt with
> > adequately flows in part from the fact that people were
> > assuming that something like syllogistic would be adequate
> > for their needs.
>
> I certainly agree with the first point, but I'd like to
> throw in a good word for Aristotle and the Scholastics,
> who were very clear about the distinction between types
> and instances.
>
> In any case, I used the term "syllogism" to indicate the
> very limited level of logical expressivity required for
> the core UF. I would assume that the tools used to support
> UF would enforce the distinction between types and instances.
>
> 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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|