I personally don't see how a discussion on context logic can do anything
but sap energy from our nascent formalization effort. If there's a serious
proposal, I'd suggest that it be offered to a peer reviewed conference,
since any practical implementation of context logic and reasoning that
could actually help us here would also be a major advance in the study of
context logic. If a proposal can't get accepted or hasn't been formulated
to the point of even being a mature submission to the context logic
conference, it's unlikely to be of any practical benefit to this
group. The primary context conference web site I'm aware of is
At 12:47 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
> > ... But there's no agreed on solution for it, ... (and)
> > ... we don't collectively have the background to even address the
> > topic intelligently. ...
>I am in agreement, and hence my earlier suggestion to:
> >> that we don't pause our current attempt to formalize UBL v1.0 ... >>
> ... just make sure it does not break up our project work.
>(if you prefer the word "distract", that is fine too)
> >> start a new thread to discuss on how we want to deal with
> >> "context"
> >> I humbly solicit input from those of you who can throw some light
> >> onto the matter. Try bringing in people who aren't already in the
> >> community to help too.
>2. As for,
> > context is important ... But ... we're not going to solve it here.
>We will have to address this in due course, we might as well start the
>separate discourse sooner rather than later (provided that it is not
>hampering our progress with the more basic attempts.)
>I think we'll all hope that you are wrong on this one. :-)
>Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:49 -0800:
>> I agree that context is important. But there's no agreed on solution
>> for it, and we're not going to solve it here. I'd venture to say we
>> don't collectively have the background to even address the topic
>> intelligently. People have made careers out of working on this topic.
>>Most folks here don't even have a background in formal logic. This is
>>another topic, like so many others, that can only distract us from the
>>practical task at hand, that doesn't need content in order to make
>>At 10:53 AM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>>> > What point of Adam's did you agree with? Could you put it
>>> > in your own words?
>>>I agree with Adam that "physical" and "abstract" are exhaustive under
>>>"entity" as represented in SUMO now. I also agree that "context"
>>>constitutes a whole separate area that is being studied and pursued.
>>>I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing whether "context" belongs in SUMO.
>>>I am, however, of the opinion that "whether or not" or "how" context
>>>fits into a KIF based ontology (or into SUMO, in our case) is beyond the
>>>scope of the ontolog-forum (and should belong to a SUMO-forum or
>>>SUO-forum wherever they are.)
>>>I am not discounting the importance of the matter, though. In fact I am
>>>positive that "context" will be a key area that needs to be addressed if
>>>we really want to make a contribution to UBL and to the development of
>>>business ontologies (I was among those who brought up the need for a
>>>"context" driven example in our suite of use cases).
>>>I agree then, Pat, that framing it (the need for "context" in our
>>>representation) in that context makes sense. Our situation is that:
>>>Pat suggested one possible solution. Adam disagreed, and cited some
>>>We all want (and need) to move the project forward. May I, then, suggest
>>>that we don't pause our current attempt to formalize UBL v1.0, but to
>>>start a new thread to discuss on how we want to deal with "context". I
>>>am sure the discourse is going to be useful and interesting, but long
>>>and drawn out ... Let's just make sure it does not break up our project work.
>>>I humbly solicit input from those of you who can throw some light onto
>>>the matter. Try bringing in people who aren't already in the community
>>>to help too.
>>>Fyi, ... I did a google on "guha mccarthy barwise situation calculus",
>>>and it returned 279 hits (guha mccarthy situation calculus). A lot of
>>>those hits will make interesting reading to some of us, like myself.
>>>Patrick Cassidy wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:00:03 -0500:
>>>> I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by your note:
>>>> > Good point, Adam.
>>>> > May I suggest that discussions specific to Upper Ontology be considered
>>>> > as being outside of our scope here. We should, predominantly, be
>>>> > in the "business" domian ontology. Is that ok with both of you,
>>> > > Pat & Adam?
>>>> > Discussions like that should probably be done elsewhere, say, for
>>>> > example, at the IEEE-SUO list.
>>>> What point of Adam's did you agree with? Could you put it
>>>>in your own words?
>>>> The additional content I have been suggesting is in most cases
>>>>*directly* related to the business Ontology, including the concept of
>>>>a "Context", which is used within the UBL specification. More
>>>>detail will have to be added to "Context" to capture the different
>>>>types of business context that they feel are relevant.
>>>> I will be quite happy to pursue discussions one-on-one
>>>>with anyone who has any questions, objections, or
>>>>suggestions for change in anything I have suggested.
>>>>However, I will simply ignore any suggestions to junk
>>>>everything and start all over, as Adam has recommended.
>>>> I plan to suggest additional content as time permits,
>>>>and will be happy to discuss specifics about this content
>>>>in any forum. I will also make, as I have already, comments
>>>>and suggestions about what others recommend.
>>>> I have bent over backwards to avoid making any changes
>>>>in the existing SUMO/MILO, focusing on additions, with
>>>>only a few renamings where there was a logical error
>>>>(such as the use of "contract" in different senses)
>>>>or ambiguity was a threat.
>>>> I have sent another note explaining why I think that
>>>>restricting additions of content from members (except
>>>>for logical inconsistency) is a really really **bad**
>>>>idea, and why addition of content only peripherally
>>>>related to the core business concepts can be helpful.
>>>>Whether or not a suggested business-related concept
>>>>captures the reality of business practice, or is
>>>>consistent with the UBL version, are important issues
>>>>for us. Discussing whether a peripheral concept happens to
>>>>be essential at this particular time is likely to be a great
>>>>time-waster, with no possible objective resolution.
>>>> Does anyone have any constructive comments on the
>>>>business concepts I have suggested? Anyone?
>>>Adam Pease wrote Sat, 21 Feb 2004 08:26:09 -0800:
>>> > Pat,
>>> > In general, while of course it's fair to have new content that is
>>> > in progress, and only partially defined, you are suggesting very
>>> > substantial additions at a high level of the ontology. The
>>> > standard must be quite different there. If someone adds a new
>>> > class JoineryInvoice, and makes it a subclass of Invoice, no harm
>>> > done. You have however proposed, among other things, adding a
>>> > new concept right at the top (under the top node of Entity),
>>> > called "Context", and then a whole new tree of concepts which
>>> > include Situation, Event etc.
>>> > Now, people spend large parts of their research careers (John
>>> > McCarthy, Guha etc) working on context logic. There are yearly
>>> > conferences on the topic. Context usually involves a context logic
>>> > that is not first order. And yet, you've inserted this notion
>>> > without definition. In addition, since the first level concepts
>>> > of Physical and Abstract already form a partition (are exhaustive),
>>> > it's not even clear in the most basic sense what "Context" means,
>>> > nor how it would be used in inference, that in most prior
>>> > research has involved speculative reasoning facilities that
>>> > don't even exist yet.
>>> > From there the problem just gets worse since you seem to be
>>> > proposing a whole new scheme for representing situations for SUMO.
>>> > Again, this is an area that has received a vast amount of research
>>> > effort, and you've provided only a taxonomy. New content at this
>>> > level simply has to be justified with axioms even to be a coherent
>>> > proposal. Otherwise we don't have any basis for a coherent
>>> > discussion about its merits.
>>> > Adam
>>> > At 12:56 AM 2/21/2004 -0500, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>> >> Adam -
>>> >> Thanks for your comment. Since the issues you discuss
>>> >> are relevant to much of the work we will be doing, I am
>>> >> sending this reply to the whole Ontolog group. The bottom
>>> >> line of this message is that I think we need to vote
>>> >> on the issue, so I hope all Ontolog members will
>>> >> slog through this and provide their own feedback. ...[snip]...
>>>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:
>>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:
>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:
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 (04)