ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The issue of Context [was - Re: [ontolog-forum] file comments -- r

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:33:30 -0800
Message-id: <403A8DCA.9000501@xxxxxxxx>
Fair, Adam.    (01)

I am curious, then, how would/should we be handling context in or 
UBL-ontology, or, more  precisely, in building an ontology for the 
business domain (as "context" is an integral part of 'real' business) 
-- we can't simply say we won't deal with it when we can't logically 
represent it, can we?    (02)

-ppy
--    (03)


Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:27:18 -0800:    (04)

> Peter,
>   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 <http://www.context.umcs.maine.edu/>
> 
> Adam    (05)


> At 12:47 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
> 
>> Adam,
>>
>> 1.
>> > ... 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"
>>
>> and,
>>
>> >> 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. :-)
>>
>> -ppy
>> --     (06)


>> Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:49 -0800:
>>
>>> Peter,
>>>   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 concrete progress.
>>> Adam    (07)


>>> At 10:53 AM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> >    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 
>>>> relevant work.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.  -ppy
>>>> --     (08)


>>>> Patrick Cassidy wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:00:03 -0500:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter --
>>>>>   I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by your note:
>>>>> [PY]
>>>>>  > 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 
>>>>> dealing
>>>>>  > 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?
>>>>>    Pat
>>>>> =============================================    (09)


>>>> 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
>>>> ---    (010)


>>>> > 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]...    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)

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