[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] file comments

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:18:06 -0800
Message-id: <>
   You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into your file of new 
content, so I don't want to keep being discouraging, but there are a lot of 
problems.  As a general comment, I think if you stick to trying to 
represent directly the information in orders and invoices your efforts will 
be much closer to what's needed.  It's tempting to think there might be 
problems and gaps in SUMO and MILO that need fixing, but in general, what 
you have done is to create a great deal of content that is either 
undefined, or redundant or both.  I find that in general when people say 
that some new high level content is needed, it's simply because they 
haven't yet understood the content that's already there.
   For example, you've created a new type of Communication, but haven't 
supplied axioms that describe how it is different from its parent.    (01)

(subclass Assertion Communication)
(documentation Assertion "An Assertion is a Proposition which describes a 
state of affairs and asserts that the state holds. It may have the value of 
true or false.  Assertions usually are simple, describing one fact, but may 
be more complex, i.e. may be composed of multiple assertions.  An Assertion 
is a communication from one IntelligentAgent to another.")    (02)

The comment is also misleading since you haven't defined Assertion as a 
Proposition, and in fact couldn't do so, since Communication is Physical 
which is disjoint from Proposition, which is Abstract.  So you've not only 
created something that is not useful for inference, since it hasn't been 
defined, but also that if it were defined as stated in the comment, would 
yield a logical contradiction.    (03)

A result of creating this class is that you've created another 
semi-redundant relation of hasModalAttribute because Assertion doesn't fit 
the argument type restrictions of modalObligation, as you note.  So now 
that results in a whole other redundant (and contradictory) way of 
expression model information.    (04)

This is just the start of the list of comments I could make, but I don't 
think it would be a good use of our time to go through them all.  My 
suggestion would be to start over, using the existing facilities of SUMO 
and MILO, and just focus on the practical representational issues involved 
in orders and invoices.  I think if you start small, maybe with the one 
term I suggested you define in my email of 1/16, we could talk about your 
definition, and probably make more rapid progress on the 
representation.  Focus on small, correct additions to the ontology.  If you 
take things a step at a time, I'd be glad to help.    (05)

Adam    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>