Peter --
I think that discussion of contexts at this time is
unnecessary and distracting, and I suggest that we
concentrate for the moment on the core components.
I am preparing another version of the samin***.txt )SKIF)
file which will have more entries with mappings from UBL concepts
to concepts in the samin file, and hope to get it posted before
Thursday. However, I do want to respond to the previous
comments.
-------------------------
If one looks in the "reusable" xml file one sees in the top
line 8 columns mentioning different types of business Context.
I don't, however, see any entries under those columns.
In some discussions, the issue of "business context"
relates to, for example, whether a particular tax or a particular
regulation applies in some geopolitical jurisdiction.
It is issues like that which will have to be dealt with,
as soon as the relatively simple matter of representing the
UBL entities has neared completion. I see no need to
discuss it at the present time, but if there is a technical
objection to having the "Context" concept at the top
level, I would like to hear such comments. (01)
> 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. (02)
I also agree with Adam that "physical" and "abstract" are
intended to be exhaustive under "entity" as represented in
SUMO now. And I have no problem with the notion that
every *instance* of an entity would be either Abstract
or Physical. However, I cannot find any **axioms** in my
copy of SUMO 1.566 which state that there cannot be any
direct subclasses of "Entity" other than "Abstract"
or "Physical". If anyone can point out the axioms to
me, I would be most grateful and will immediately remove
"Context" as a subclass of Entity. If the axioms do
not yet exist, I recommend that we not add them,
because that would then make SUMO much more
difficult to map to other ontologies, which have
classes other than "Physical" and "Abstract"
in their top level. (03)
As for areas that are currently being studied --
doesn't that cover everything, including business
entities?? If we **agree to use** some specific
logic that would choke on a class called "Context",
sure let's consider alternatives. Until then, we
should recognize the reality that context is
critical in every human endeavor and resign
ourselves to the fact that we will have to deal with
it. Anyone who doesn't want to deal with it now
can ignore it. When we find objective criteria
for evaluating such suggestions, everything
in the ontology, including what is currently
in SUMO, should be subject to deletion
or change, **based on such criteria**. (04)
Pat (05)
===================================== (06)
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
> --
>
> 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
>>
>> =============================================
>
>
>
> 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/
> 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
>
> (07)
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy (08)
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax) (09)
internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
============================================= (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|