On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Chris Partridge wrote: (01)
> John, et al.
> What bothers me about one aspect of this discussion is that it seems
> bring to mind the Russell quote about the advantages of theft over
> I do not see how one can draw up the logical axioms and so on, if
> one does
> not know enough about what one is axiomatising. (02)
Nobody suggested otherwise. To suggest they did is not helpful to the
> If a team of people are doing this, then they need a common
> understanding of
> sufficient accuracy.
> I do not see how, for this understanding stage, saying that a term
> is going
> to be a primitive helps. It seems to imply one does not need to
> it - or maybe that everyone understands it unequivocally. (04)
Come, come, Chris. You know better than this. In a first-order
ontology, *all* terms are 'primitive'. All that John is saying is, we
are not obliged to write out new axioms for such concepts as 'physical
object' or 'attribute'. We are not obliged to give a full ontological
exegesis for every term we use, and indeed it would be good
engineering to NOT do this for such high-level terms, And he is
absolutely right. (05)
> JS> The UoM *must* be compatible with every one of those plus a lot
> This compatibility is a admirable goal, but I do not see how anyone
> is going
> to reach it without a reasonable understanding of the domain.
> Once one (or the team) have the understanding, then one can make these
> In my experience, from an engineering maturity perspective, conceptual
> engineering / ontology is at a pre-Eli Whitney stage. We do not yet
> have the
> tools to make artefacts sufficiently accurately so that they can be
> reasonably indiscriminately. Each time we try, we realise this
> and try to make them more accurate.
> One can also take heart from Eli Whitney that one only needs a tool
> that can
> produce something accurate enough for the task - he found a way of
> the accuracy required without needing a micrometer.
> So, if one views the discussions about mass and so on as attempts as
> arriving at a common understanding, they are a healthy part of the
> process. (06)
Agreed, but they too often stray from being an arriving at a common
understanding, into what might be called a confusion of amateur
ontology-hacking. The current noise about 'equivalence classes' (with
no mention of any equivalence relations) is a good example. (07)
Pat Hayes (08)
> Some people may find using an upper ontology to help do this useful.
> I do.
> Others may take a different view. I would guess what is important is
> to find
> whatever means one can to arrive at the common understanding.
> Whether one
> uses that in the axioms is an implementation decision.
> Chris Partridge
> Chief Ontologist
> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
> Phone: +44 20 81331891
> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> BORO Centre Limited
> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
> Registered in England No: 04418581
> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
> This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It
> may be
> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named
> of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose,
> disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO
> Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no
> cost to
> yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using
> Virus software.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>> Sent: 26 September 2009 15:27
>> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; uom-ontology-std
>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>> Ed and Joe,
>> The fundamental principle I've been trying to get across is
>> that we are *not* defining yet another upper level ontology.
>> Those terms have been defined many times before in many
>> different upper level ontologies.
>> If anyone wants to see a definition of them, go look at
>> OpenCyc, SUMO, Dolce, BFO, etc. The UoM *must* be compatible
>> with every one of those plus a lot more. Therefore, we
>> *must* not define those words. For the UoM, they must be
>> taken as primitives -- i.e., undefined terms. That allows
>> the upper level ontologies to define them according to any
>> philosophical principles they choose.
>> EB> But if we take John's guidance at his word, the following
>>> are undefined primitives: Quantity, Kind of Quantity,
>>> Quantity Magnitude, Dimension, Unit of Measure. Now, what
>>> sort of ontology will we make with those undefined terms?
>> We would have exactly what a UoM ontology should be: a general
>> purpose microtheory that is compatible with a wide range of
>> upper-level ontologies.
>> JC> I think we need to have these three aspects of the meaning
>>> of Quantities and Units for meaningful definitions.
>> If you want a definition, go look at OpenCyc or any of the
>> other upper levels. The UoM is not being defined in a vacuum.
>> It is *part* of a community of ontology developers.
>> The VIM document is compatible with every one of the currently
>> proposed upper levels and many more that are yet to be invented.
>> The UoM ontology *must* be compatible with every one of them.
>> Those terms that are primitive for the UoM will have different
>> definitions in different upper levels, but that is precisely why
>> we must avoid presenting yet another incompatible definition.
>> EB> Well, John, what precisely is the problem at hand? That
>>> is the question Gunther was trying to answer.
>> Fundamental problem:
>> Design an ontology for units of measure that support
>> interoperability among legacy systems that have no
>> ontology and among new systems that are based on
>> different upper level ontologies.
>> The VIM document does that. We should be more formal,
>> but at least as compatible as they are.
>> EB> We don't want a reasoner to use valid mathematics and
>>> nonsense physics to produce the proof of a conjecture.
>> Every engineering project uses approximations because the
>> fundamental equations are too difficult to solve efficiently,
>> and they frequently use theories such as Newtonian mechanics
>> that are known to be wrong.
>> As I have said many times, the UoM must be compatible with
>> an upper ontology based on the latest theories of physics
>> and an upper ontology based on 19th century physics. The
>> VIM document achieves that balance. So should the UoM.
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (010)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (011)