Matthew,
Thanks for the info on the ISO 15296 process.
I will answer two questions here: (01)
[[[1]]]
>
> MW: Please explain how having temporal parts is compatible with not
> having temporal parts.
>
Because the thing that has temporal parts (the 4D object) is not the
same type of thing as the one that has no temporal parts (the
dimension-neutral 'object'), in my own ontology, and different relations
apply to the two.
Alternatively, if a 3D object is considered as a timeslice of a 4D
object, it *might* be included in the 'hasTemporalPart' relation, but in
that case it would trivially be a temporal part of itself, and the relation
would in fact apply. If the relation's intended meaning were more explicitly
a necessary 'hasTemporalProperParts', then a time-slice of zero duration
would *not* be part of the domain of the relation. I would have to see the
explicit axiomatization to determine why there is an apparent contradiction. (02)
I have seen and participated in enough of these types of discussions to
know that talk of "logical contradiction" cannot be resolved unless the
axioms that explicitly demonstrate the logical contradiction are presented.
Pat Hayes has done that, and I believe that I recognize the flaws in those
demonstrations, but I will not have time to write the reply for another few
days. Hold off on this topic until then? (03)
[[[2]]]
>
> MW: It is only one case. However, what is clear here is that
> you are shifting your ground to accepting that to get general
> agreement you would need to include a number of ontological
> foundations, and the mappings between them where these could
> be constructed. This IS John's lattice of theories, so he will
> be pleased to hear that you support his position after all.
>
> MW: You can work out what most of these would be
> from the commitments they make to e.g. 3d/4d, extensionality
> and so on. I would guess there might be as many as 10 that
> would get enough support to be worth pursuing. But you can be
> open about this, be prepared to include anyone that is prepared
> to do the mapping work to the n other views (unless one turns
> out to be able to support all others completely.
>
> MW: Now this I think is worth trying to undertake. But we are
> now a million miles from a limited vocabulary able to define
> anything you want.
>
I think we need to revisit a point of terminology. If an ontology
includes multiple logically consistent viewpoints that can each be extracted
for separate use in an application, I consider that to be one ontology. The
separately extracted ontologies are indeed different ontologies, but by
being extracted from a single logically consistent ontology rather than
developed separately they will be automatically logically consistent with
each other (cannot generate contradictions on inferencing), and will be
highly interoperable. Call that a "mapping" if you like ("mapping" usually
refers to the process of relating separately developed ontologies). I would
have no problem in calling the ontology with multiple views a "lattice of
theories" except for one point - as it has been used many times, a "lattice
of theories" can include logically contradictory assertions. If the
logically consistent ontology with multiple views is a "lattice of theories"
then it is one of a very special kind, and the distinction must be very
explicit to avoid confusion. If you like, call it a "fully consistent
lattice of theories" - then I am comfortable.
I have said on several occasions that I endorse the notion of having a
"lattice of theories", including logically incompatible ones. But I still
believe that there is a self-consistent foundation ontology that includes
multiple views, which has enough basic concept representations to provide
the logical specifications of almost all the concepts in any domain - and
can be supplemented as required to specify any remaining concepts in that
domain not able to be specified by the pre-existing foundation ontology.
And this is precisely right in the center of my 'limited vocabulary'
(Conceptual Defining Vocabulary) hypothesis.
I have said as part of this hypothesis that the required supplementation
for any given domain will be small, once the basic CDV is on hand. But that
is also part of the hypothesis, which needs to be proven (probabilistically
- it can never be absolutely proven) by a serious attempt to build such a
foundation ontology. And then by applying it to multiple domains. (04)
Pat (05)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:25 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> communication
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> > Matthew,
> > There are some points I think are worth pursuing:
> >
> > [[[1]]]
> > [PC] > > ** The relevant question is, when a group of people who are
> > > > determined to
> > > > find a common model of *basic* concepts get together, what
> > > > kinds of issues
> > > > remain that cannot be resolved by sincere efforts to find ways to
> > > > accommodate the needs of all of them? **
> > >
> > [MW] > MW: My experience again is that whatever you choose, there
> will
> > > be some people who will find it unpalatable enough to walk away.
> > > I would certainly not waste my time with anything 3D as an example,
> > > and there are others who would not countenance 4D.
> >
> > In your experience, what fraction many people who actually
> > participated
> > with significant time in development of a foundation ontology
> > walked away
> > and hose not to use it?
>
> MW: I think it is maybe 15-25% with ISO 15926, but it was not over
> 3D/4D as it happens. Perhaps the worst thing is that some used the
> ontology, but with meanings that were not the intended ones.
>
> > Were they paid for their
> > participation?
>
> MW: Yes.
>
> > From all
> > our previous experience we know now that process is
> > critically important,
> > and there are processes that have not been tried. As I said,
> > we don't need
> > universal agreement, we only need a critical mass of users to form a
> > community that can share their experiences and attract third-party
> > developers of helpful utilities.
>
> MW: Oh yes, you can easily form a community that will use an ontology
> once it has been developed, tested, and shown to meet some specific
> needs.
> ISO 15926 has a significant following with more than 20 vendors
> claiming
> to support it. But that does not make it the ONE ontology that everyone
> can agree to use. Why for example do you not simply adopt ISO 15926 for
> your purposes since we have apparantly already achieved what you set
> out to achieve (or SUMO, or CYC, or DOLCE etc)?
>
> >
> > [[[2]]]
> > [PC] > > We know how to resolve terminology
> > > > clashes - use different names or different namespaces for the
> > > > different concepts.
> > >
> > > MW: That is not true for 3D/4D, it is about what sorts of things
> > > physical objects (in particular) are. For a 4-dimensionalist they
> > > are extended in time and have temporal parts, for a 3
> Dimensionalist
> > > they wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
> > > parts. The terminology is frankly irrelevant, it is the ideas that
> > > are diametrically opposed.
> >
> > As I have mentioned before, I believe that 3D and 4D are
> > different and
> > compatible
>
> MW: Please explain how having temporal parts is compatible with not
> having temporal parts.
>
> > views of the same entities. We can use different words to
> > describe our views, but the important question for the
> > machines is whether
> > the different views lead to *representations* that are logically
> > inconsistent.
>
> MW: They clearly are.
>
> > We don't need to agree on which aspect of the
> > entity is of
> > greatest importance to us - we have to agree on how to represent
> those
> > different views, optimally in a way that can be related and
> > not be logically
> > inconsistent. I presented an example in a previous post in
> > this thread of
> > how one 3D view can be reconciled with one 4D view. If you
> > think there are
> > 4d and 3D views that are logically inconsistent, please show
> > us the axioms
> > that lead to inconsistency.
>
> MW: I thought Pat H already did that, and I have given an informal
> example above (having and not having temporal parts).
>
> > To say
> > (1) extended in time and have temporal parts or
> > (2) wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not
> > have temporal
> > parts
> > Is to describe two different views of the same object.
>
> MW: Now here I can agree, 3D and 4D are different ways of viewing the
> same object. However, they are also inconsistent views, i.e. they
> cannot
> be combined into one view, you have to maintain (if you wish) two
> representations of the same thing and a mapping between them to avoid
> inconsistency.
>
> > The task of
> > ontological engineering is not to describe the ultimate structure of
> > reality, but to create a representation that is useful for automated
> > inferencing in solving practical problems. The only thing
> > relevant is how
> > these views are formalized. It can be helpful for people
> > using the ontology
> > to have good documentation as well - the documentation can include
> the
> > different interpretations. The issue is whether the
> > formalizations are
> > inconsistent.
>
> MW: For the third time: they are.
> >
> > [[[3]]]
> > [MW] > MW: Yes, you could put both 3D and 4D theories into
> > some ontology
> > > repository, and provide a mapping between them. This is
> > quite possible.
> > > But make no mistake, you now already have a lattice of theories and
> > > two foundation ontologies, not one. Each physical object would be
> > > represented twice, once as a 3D object and once as a 4D object
> >
> > No, you would not have two ontologies, you would have one
> > self-consistent
> > ontology in which two different and compatible views are
> > represented,
>
> MW: For the fourth time: they are not compatible, they are
> contradictory.
>
> > with
> > axioms that automatically convert an assertion in one form into the
> > equivalent assertion in the other form.
>
> MW:Yes, that is what I just said. But now you have two representations
> of the same physical object - not so good when you come to count how
> many physical objects you have.
>
> > One could, of course, create
> > subontologies in which either of the forms is represented
> > without the other.
>
> MW: Right. This is how a lattice of theories works.
>
> > But these will be logically compatible, and any time
> > assertions in the two
> > subontologies need to be related, they can be converted
> > accurately.
>
> MW: Also right. But there are two ontologies and a mapping between
> them, not one canonical ontology that everyone agrees with.
>
> > In the
> > full ontology, one might very well have two different
> > representations of the
> > same entity, but they would be created automatically and
> > accurately from a
> > single assertion in either form (4D or 3D), and would not
> > change the effects
> > of the inferencing.
>
> MW: Indeed. Again, this is how a lattice of theories would work
> and is what I described above until you started to disagree with
> me.
>
> > Fear of redundancy is one of the factors that has
> > inhibited creation of such an inclusive ontology. I do not
> > believe it is a
> > problem, because utilities can be created to allow users to
> > select only the
> > parts they need from the full ontology, and in that way the
> > redundancy will
> > have no effect on performance in stand-alone applications.
> > When the full
> > ontology is used to enable interoperability between two views, the
> > inferencing may be slower. How much slower will be
> > discovered in practice.
>
> MW: Well I think one would need to choose the view that worked best
> for the kind of inferencing you were wanting to do.
> >
> >
> > [[[4]]] [MW] >> MW: Just take a close look at what Pat H is
> > saying about the
> > > incompatibility between 3D and 4D.
> > >
> > I did, and I was astonished to see him produce a set of
> > assertions in which
> > the '=' sign is used (it appears to me) in two different
> > senses, but is
> > considered identical for the purpose of inferencing. He has
> > denied that the
> > meanings are different, and we will soon I expect proceed to
> > discuss this
> > point further. But if that is the best argument against 3D
> > being compatible
> > with 4D, I think my case is proven.
>
> MW: It is only one case. However, what is clear here is that
> you are shifting your ground to accepting that to get general
> agreement you would need to include a number of ontological
> foundations, and the mappings between them where these could
> be constructed. This IS John's lattice of theories, so he will
> be pleased to hear that you support his position after all.
>
> MW: You can work out what most of these would be
> from the commitments they make to e.g. 3d/4d, extensionality
> and so on. I would guess there might be as many as 10 that
> would get enough support to be worth pursuing. But you can be
> open about this, be prepared to include anyone that is prepared
> to do the mapping work to the n other views (unless one turns
> out to be able to support all others completely.
>
> MW: Now this I think is worth trying to undertake. But we are
> now a million miles from a limited vocabulary able to define
> anything you want.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Registered in England and Wales
> Registered number: 621148
> Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MICRA, Inc.
> > 908-561-3416
> > cell: 908-565-4053
> > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:20 AM
> > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > > communication
> > >
> > > Dear Pat,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > MW - one request for clarification:
> > > >
> > > > [MW] >
> > > > > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> > > > spent much of
> > > > > my life doing business analaysis for systems design,
> > and reviewing
> > > > > data models produced by others. I am always surprised
> > at just how
> > > > > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> > > > I have yet
> > > > > to see two data models of the same application look the
> > > > same except by
> > > > > cut and paste.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am well aware that models created in isolation from each
> > > > other will vary
> > > > widely. That is a restatement of the problem. The
> > hypothesis of the
> > > > 'Conceptual Defining Vocabulary' states that it will be
> > > > possible to solve
> > > > that problem with a common ontology of agreed basic concepts
> > > > that are used
> > > > to specify the meanings of the more specialized concepts in
> > > > the different
> > > > models.
> > >
> > > MW: I agree it is possible to come up with a common ontology of
> > > basic concepts that can be used to integrate the diverse models
> > > you talk about. I have done this myself with ISO 15926. However,
> > > you are claiming that there is ONE such ontology which we all
> > > share by some sort of osmosis. The point I was trying to make
> > > about all the different data models is that there is not such
> > > ONE ontology. I beleive there are several possible ontologies with
> > > different ontological foundations, each of which would be quite
> > > capable of helping to integrate diverse other ontologies of
> > > whatever form.
> > >
> > > MW: Further you are claiming that there are a limited set of
> > > foundation objects from which all others can be defined. This
> > > also does not sit true with me. I have seen new primitive
> > > concepts arise at almost any and every level of an ontology. I
> > > agree that it is very useful when classes can be defined as the
> > > intersection of some other classes, but it doesn't actually happen
> > > that often for me (though I admitedly usually leave these to
> > > be implied, rather than making them explicit).
> > >
> > > MW: Just as a simple example, can you show how you would move
> > > from even a relatively general class like pump, to centrifugal
> > > pump? Where do you get the centrifugal from?
> > > >
> > > > ** The relevant question is, when a group of people who are
> > > > determined to
> > > > find a common model of *basic* concepts get together, what
> > > > kinds of issues
> > > > remain that cannot be resolved by sincere efforts to find ways to
> > > > accommodate the needs of all of them? **
> > >
> > > MW: My experience again is that whatever you choose, there will
> > > be some people who will find it unpalatable enough to walk away.
> > > I would certainly not waste my time with anything 3D as an example,
> > > and there are others who would not countenance 4D.
> > > >
> > > > I am very interested in finding out just what kinds of
> > > > residual problems
> > > > there really are. Thus far the examples I have seen all
> > resolve to a
> > > > terminology clash - two different people want to use the same
> > > > term to refer
> > > > to concepts of different meaning. We know how to resolve
> > terminology
> > > > clashes - use different names or different namespaces for the
> > > > different
> > > > concepts.
> > >
> > > MW: That is not true for 3D/4D, it is about what sorts of things
> > > physical objects (in particular) are. For a 4-dimensionalist they
> > > are extended in time and have temporal parts, for a 3
> Dimensionalist
> > > they wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
> > > parts. The terminology is frankly irrelevant, it is the ideas that
> > > are diametrically opposed.
> > >
> > > > If it is important to relate those concepts to
> > > > each other, that
> > > > takes a bit of work to analyze the reasons for the
> > > > differences and find the
> > > > relations between the two different representations.
> > >
> > > MW: Yes, you could put both 3D and 4D theories into some ontology
> > > repository, and provide a mapping between them. This is
> > quite possible.
> > > But make no mistake, you now already have a lattice of theories and
> > > two foundation ontologies, not one. Each physical object would be
> > > represented twice, once as a 3D object and once as a 4D object.
> > > >
> > > > If there is a case where an effort of that kind could
> > not arrive at
> > > > agreement on how to include or reconcile some seemingly logically
> > > > incompatible representations, I would very much like to learn
> > > > what those
> > > > problems are, in detail.
> > >
> > > MW: Just take a close look at what Pat H is saying about the
> > > incompatibility between 3D and 4D.
> > > >
> > > > Pat
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Cassidy
> > > > MICRA, Inc.
> > > > 908-561-3416
> > > > cell: 908-565-4053
> > > > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > > > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:41 AM
> > > > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > > > > communication
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear John and Pat H.,
> > > > >
> > > > > > >In other words, all the axioms are at the task
> > level, and each
> > > > > > >message sent between systems identifies what ontology is
> > > assumed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that makes a certain sense, but Im less sanguine
> > > > than you are
> > > > > > about being able to neatly express relationships between
> > > > ontologies.
> > > > > > Not that such relations are impossible, but I think they
> > > > will will be
> > > > > > messier and more tangled, as Mala says in her recent
> > > > message. Which
> > > > > > is not necessarily a problem or something to avoid, just
> > > > something we
> > > > > > should be ready for.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: I agree with Pat here, that just encouraging an
> > > > unlimited number of
> > > > > ontologies and saying we will map between them, is perhaps
> > > > where we are
> > > > > headed at the moment, but it is an expensive direction to
> > > > take. My best
> > > > > hope at the moment is to encourage convergence onto a limited
> > > number
> > > > > of ontologies - say 10 or so. They would have clearly stated
> > > > > foundations
> > > > > where the differences would be known and understood, and
> > > > mappings could
> > > > > be provided. I think several is good, because that provides
> > > > a market,
> > > > > which will help to drive improvement. It might also be that
> > > > some die,
> > > > > and others are born.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> > > > spent much of
> > > > > my life doing business analaysis for systems design,
> > and reviewing
> > > > > data models produced by others. I am always surprised
> > at just how
> > > > > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> > > > I have yet
> > > > > to see two data models of the same application look the
> > > > same except by
> > > > > cut and paste.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew West
> > > > > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > > > > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > > > > Registered in England and Wales
> > > > > Registered number: 621148
> > > > > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > > > >
> > > > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > > > > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > http://www.shell.com
> > > > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > > > Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > > > forum/
> > > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > > > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > > > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > Subscribe/Config:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|