On Sat, February 16, 2013 09:37, Matthew West wrote:
Matthew, the use of terms like "ludicrous", "rubbish", and "stupid"
to denigrate the views of someone posting on this forum is unfortunate.
We can have a better discussion if we provide counter-examples or outline
flaws in the other's argument, instead. (01)
> Dear John, (02)
> Unfortunately, both you and Doug completely missed the point
> that we were talking about methodologies for INTEGRATING
> (or conceptual) ontologies, not reasoning ontologies. (03)
I was discussing integrating ontologies and the reasons that
making metaphysical commitments in such ontologies would
be counterproductive. (04)
>> ...
> MW: The whole purpose of an integrating ontology is to be able to leave
> the legacy systems alone,
> but bring together their data in a uniform environment
> so that data can be analysed across multiple applications. (05)
Which suggests to me that application-specific commitments should not be
part of the integrating ontology. (06)
>> There was some discussion of these issues in the email list for the
>> ontology summit. I'll relate some of it to the slides of the talks. (07)
>> I'll start with Slide 19 in Barry Smith's talk:
>> > Candidate Upper Level Ontologies
>> > - Domain Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE) -
>> > Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) - Upper Cyc Ontology -
>> > Basic Formal Ontology - all reflections of recognized need for semantic
>> > standardization via upper level ontology (08)
>> That may be true of what the DOLCE, SUMO, and BFO developers say.
>> But it is definitely *not* true of Cyc. Doug Lenat has explicitly said
>> that the upper level is the *least* important. He said that
>> *all* the detailed reasoning is based on axioms and definitions at the
>> mid level and lower levels. (09)
> MW: CYC is not an integrating ontology - granted it is very large, but it
> has an entirely different purpose. (010)
Please read some of the early Cyc papers. The initial intent of Cyc was
to be an upper and mid-level ontology that could be used to inter-relate
large numbers of focused domain ontologies. I.e., it is designed to
integrate
them. (011)
>> The most important role of the upper level is to establish
>> a common set shared terms for types and relations. The top level
>> must be very underspecified -- usually with little more
>> than type-subtype and disjoint-from links. The lower level
>> "microtheories" contain the axioms and definitions needed for
>> detailed reasoning. (012)
> MW: We are not talking about upper ontologies, but INTEGRATING
> ontologies, these will normally include upper ontologies and
> indeed only Barry seemed to
> think it necessary to make a case for using an upper ontology, the other
> speakers just assumed it was the only way you had any chance of success. (013)
>> Cyc has been developing their ontology for over 28 years (since 1984).
>> They discovered very early (by 1989) that a single, consistent,
>> monolithic ontology was unworkable.
>> Instead, they reorganized the ontology by removing
>> most of the detail from the upper level, and pushing it down to the
>> possibly *inconsistent* microtheories. (014)
> MW: Again CYC is doing something completely different. It is trying to
> provide a range of different theories that might be suitable
> for REASONING in a number of different circumstances. (015)
Cyc divides its "microtheories" into Vocabulary, Theory, and Data
microtheories. A given #$VocabularyMicrotheory may have multiple
inconsistent #$TheoryMicrotheories which will inherit its terms. A
#$TheoryMicrotheory may have multiple inconsistent #$DataMicrotheories
that inherit its theories. (016)
So what MW is saying about Cyc, may be correct for its theories, does
not apply to its basic term definitions. (017)
>> In the slides by Chris Partridge, I very strongly agree with the first
>> half dozen slides about the need for an architecture based on a "shared
>> understanding" among the key developers. I disagree with later points: (018)
>> From Slide 9 by Chris P:
>> > "Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any
>> > metaphysics... and you have found one whose doctrines are
>> > thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticizedmetaphysics with
>> > which they are packed"
>> > (Charles Peirce, Collected Papers 1.129). (019)
>> I also quote that point, but I disagree with Chris's assumptions about
>> the implications:
>> > In other words, there is going to be a top ontology anyway, Do you
>> > want to manage it directly (or manage the results of a heterogeneous
>> > framework on a piecemeal basis)? (020)
>> I agree that every ontology will inevitably have some kind of top level.
>> I also agree that it should be managed on a systematic basis. But I
>> strongly disagree with the following points: (021)
>> 1. The top level should be based on subtle distinctions that even
>> professional philosophers find controversial. (022)
> MW: The distinctions were not subtle. (023)
The subtlety of the distinctions depends upon the viewer. They are
esoteric for businessmen, engineers, and computer programmers.
But they are incredibly significant for philosophers. Some ontologists
will hold a view somewhere between these extremes. Those trained
in philosophy, often tend towards the philosophers' viewpoint. (024)
>> 2. The existing diversity of heterogeneous legacy systems can be
>> (let alone, *must* be) replaced by rigid philosophical distinctions
>> that will be imposed upon every conforming application. (025)
> MW: Chris did not say this, and I consider it really inappropriate that
> you should put these words in his mouth.
>
>> Following is a revised version of the recommendations that I proposed
>> in earlier notes to the Ontology Summit list: (026)
>> 1. Avoid subtle and controversial philosophical distinctions in the
>> top levels of an ontology. (027)
> MW: This just does not work for an integrating ontology. (028)
Why do you hold that this "just does not work"? (029)
> You cannot perform the integration until you know what the
> choices are for how you are going to do the integration. (030)
Sure. But selecting a philosophical model need not be a choice. (031)
> It is frankly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. (032)
Why is it not ludicrous to force the choice of a philosophical model
on a non-philosophical system? (033)
>> 2. Avoid making detailed commitments in the top levels. Push any
>> complex details or distinctions into the middle and lower levels. (034)
> MW: Rubbish. You should make commitments at the appropriate level. (035)
This seems to me to be what John is saying. Detailed commitments
are not appropriate at the top level in a hierarchy of ontologies.
As long as no commitment is made in an upper-level ontology, the
commitment can be made in an application context. (036)
> It is just as stupid to make a commitment about subtype/supertype and
> classification multiple times at different levels of your ontology, as it
> is to insist on say proper parts as the only way that parthood can be at
the
> top of an ontology. (037)
We are discussing the integration of ontologies, with one integrating
ontology that is inherited by multiple domain ontologies -- which
themselves may have multiple sub-domain ontologies -- all of which
may be used by multiple users in different organizations. (038)
A sub-domain ontology or corporate ontology or even an application
knowledge base is not restricted to adding nodes at the leaves of
the ontologies which it inherits. They can insert classes between
existing classes in the inherited ontology, if distinctions are appropriate
at that level (e.g., a biology ontology may add phyla, biological orders,
genuses, etc. between "Animal" and "Human"). If such an ontology
finds it appropriate to commit to a metaphysical model, it can define
very high level concepts as subtypes of its metaphysical types. By
doing so, the need to make a large number of subtype assertions
is obviated. (039)
As for parthood, it would be appropriate for the upper ontology to have
relations for both generic parthood and proper parthood (as well as
other specializations of the most generic parthood. Contexts that wish
to use proper parthood should use existing proper parthood relations
or define appropriate specializations. (040)
>> 3. Design the ontology in a way that is easy to modify or adapt
>> as needed -- preferably by automated or semi-automated methods. (041)
> MW: Well I'm pleased to find something I can agree with at last. However,
> I think this is as much a design approach issue as it is a tools issue. (042)
Haven't we been discussing a design approach all along? ... designing
an integrating ontology? (043)
> MW: I would appreciate it if you could try to react to what is being
> discussed, rather than keep mounting old hobby horses. (044)
This may be a reaction, but it seems not to be discussing the issues.
Let's keep to the issues instead of characterizing each others' comments
[ as my previous statement did 8)# ]. (045)
Regards,
doug foxvog (046)
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> (047)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (048)
|