Comments on: SUMO http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo blog.iandavis.com Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:19:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0-alpha hourly 1 By: Adam Pease http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-114 Adam Pease Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:52:18 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-114 Ian, A few further thoughts on the specific concepts here. I'm not sure what the benefit of having ConstructedObject would be. Any creature would then properly be a ConstructedObject because of the biological process of reproduction. One problem that many ontologies have, I believe, is a result of not having formal rules that define the terms. The problem is a proliferation of classes that are mostly undefined, and unneccessary. If we allow constructed objects which are the result of any non-agentive process, then we admit every object into that class, since every physical object owes its existence to some process. We might then consider restricting this notion to be AnimalConstructedObject. That might be argued, but still we'd be left with a definition that was only that an animal made the object. That wouldn't have much impact on the logical conclusions that might be drawn. I think one would be better off adding a rule to the concept of Nest that simply states that it was the result of a Process where the agent is an Animal. The class hierarchy is an important representational feature, but is overloaded by ontologies that are constructed in limited languages that have only class membership and relation typing at their disposal. Once one has available a more powerful logical language, a more detailed analysis and implementation is possible. So, I think the moral here is not to get hung up on looking at just the class structure of SUMO, since it's not merely a taxonomy. Ian,
A few further thoughts on the specific concepts here. I’m not sure what the benefit of having ConstructedObject would be. Any creature would then properly be a ConstructedObject because of the biological process of reproduction. One problem that many ontologies have, I believe, is a result of not having formal rules that define the terms. The problem is a proliferation of classes that are mostly undefined, and unneccessary. If we allow constructed objects which are the result of any non-agentive process, then we admit every object into that class, since every physical object owes its existence to some process. We might then consider restricting this notion to be AnimalConstructedObject. That might be argued, but still we’d be left with a definition that was only that an animal made the object. That wouldn’t have much impact on the logical conclusions that might be drawn. I think one would be better off adding a rule to the concept of Nest that simply states that it was the result of a Process where the agent is an Animal. The class hierarchy is an important representational feature, but is overloaded by ontologies that are constructed in limited languages that have only class membership and relation typing at their disposal. Once one has available a more powerful logical language, a more detailed analysis and implementation is possible. So, I think the moral here is not to get hung up on looking at just the class structure of SUMO, since it’s not merely a taxonomy.

]]> By: Adam Pease http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-113 Adam Pease Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:37:29 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-113 Ian, I think it would be good to explore what is the practical impact of having terms that subjectively are at different levels of specificity inherit from the same class. There's no practical impact on the logical conclusions that can be drawn, as far as I can see. There is a potential impact on human understanding of the ontology, but I believe that is addressed in this case by having "Nest" exist in the MId-Level Ontology, rather than SUMO. Are there other negative impacts that you see? Adam Ian,
I think it would be good to explore what is the practical impact of having terms that subjectively are at different levels of specificity inherit from the same class. There’s no practical impact on the logical conclusions that can be drawn, as far as I can see. There is a potential impact on human understanding of the ontology, but I believe that is addressed in this case by having “Nest” exist in the MId-Level Ontology, rather than SUMO. Are there other negative impacts that you see?

Adam

]]> By: Ian Davis http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-112 Ian Davis Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:35:18 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-112 Adam, It's incongruous because its level of specificity is greater than the other three terms at that level of the ontology. Where would "chrysalis" be placed? One solution would be to introduce a new "ConstructedObject" term as a peer of "ContentBearingObject" and "OrganicObject". Then "Artifact", "Nest", "Chrysalis" etc are made descendants of "ConstructedObject". Ian Adam,

It’s incongruous because its level of specificity is greater than the other three terms at that level of the ontology. Where would “chrysalis” be placed?

One solution would be to introduce a new “ConstructedObject” term as a peer of “ContentBearingObject” and “OrganicObject”. Then “Artifact”, “Nest”, “Chrysalis” etc are made descendants of “ConstructedObject”.

Ian

]]> By: Adam Pease http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-111 Adam Pease Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:52:50 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-111 Hi Ian, Ah yes, now I see why Nest is just a CorpuscularObject. My colleague Ian Niles created the concept, and it looks like he did indeed put it in the right place. So, do you agree, and do you still see the definition as incongruous? If so, why? The general point you mention about upper ontologies is important. Where would the "right hooks" come from for many little bottom up ontologies, if not from an upper ontology? There are many reasons for using an upper ontology, but you've mentioned one important one. Adam Hi Ian,
Ah yes, now I see why Nest is just a CorpuscularObject. My colleague Ian Niles created the concept, and it looks like he did indeed put it in the right place. So, do you agree, and do you still see the definition as incongruous? If so, why?
The general point you mention about upper ontologies is important. Where would the “right hooks” come from for many little bottom up ontologies, if not from an upper ontology? There are many reasons for using an upper ontology, but you’ve mentioned one important one.

Adam

]]> By: Ian Davis http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-110 Ian Davis Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:29:56 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-110 Hi Adam, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I should have been more careful when writing "Browsing SUMO turns up lots of these kind of inconsistencies.": I didn't intend to imply a logical inconsistency. I could have better described them as being incongruous. Taking another look, I'm not sure that simply moving "nest" to be under "Artifact" actually solves the problem. Using the SUMO browser to explore Artifact a little suggests to me that Artifact is a subclass of IntentionalProcess which is "A Process that has a specific purpose for the CognitiveAgent who performs it.". SUMO defines a CognitiveAgent as "A SentientAgent with responsibilities and the ability to reason, deliberate, make plans, etc. This is essentially the legal/ethical notion of a person." There are some examples of creatures that might be CognitiveAgents, but it looks to me as if most nest-building creatures would be excluded. Perhaps there needs to be some distinction made between objects constructed through instinct and objects constructed through planning. I would then place nests, beaver lodges, bee hives, termite mounds and the like as instances of the former class. What do you think? Ian Hi Adam,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I should have been more careful when writing “Browsing SUMO turns up lots of these kind of inconsistencies.”: I didn’t intend to imply a logical inconsistency. I could have better described them as being incongruous.

Taking another look, I’m not sure that simply moving “nest” to be under “Artifact” actually solves the problem. Using the SUMO browser to explore Artifact a little suggests to me that Artifact is a subclass of IntentionalProcess which is “A Process that has a specific purpose for the CognitiveAgent who performs it.”. SUMO defines a CognitiveAgent as “A SentientAgent with responsibilities and the ability to reason, deliberate, make plans, etc. This is essentially the legal/ethical notion of a person.” There are some examples of creatures that might be CognitiveAgents, but it looks to me as if most nest-building creatures would be excluded. Perhaps there needs to be some distinction made between objects constructed through instinct and objects constructed through planning. I would then place nests, beaver lodges, bee hives, termite mounds and the like as instances of the former class. What do you think?

Ian

]]> By: Adam Pease http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-109 Adam Pease Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:08:00 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-109 Folks, I'm puzzled by this article, which states that there is an "inconsistency" in SUMO. That's a fairly strong word, which in a logical system would normally be taken to mean "contradiction". Of course, no contradiction exists in the example mentioned. Now, one can reasonably make a case that "Nest" does not belong directly under "CorpuscularArtifact". Indeed, now that you've pointed this out, I'm inclined to put it under "Artifact" at least. But to dismiss all of SUMO by one example from the MId Level Ontology (MILO), is a bit of a strech. I'd be eager to know of any other definitions that you find problematic, but please lets not jump to conclusions of exaggerating either their influence on the entire enterprise, or even exaggerating the degree of concern about any particular infelicity. Folks,
I’m puzzled by this article, which states that there is an “inconsistency” in SUMO. That’s a fairly strong word, which in a logical system would normally be taken to mean “contradiction”. Of course, no contradiction exists in the example mentioned. Now, one can reasonably make a case that “Nest” does not belong directly under “CorpuscularArtifact”. Indeed, now that you’ve pointed this out, I’m inclined to put it under “Artifact” at least. But to dismiss all of SUMO by one example from the MId Level Ontology (MILO), is a bit of a strech. I’d be eager to know of any other definitions that you find problematic, but please lets not jump to conclusions of exaggerating either their influence on the entire enterprise, or even exaggerating the degree of concern about any particular infelicity.

]]> By: denny http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-108 denny Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:44:21 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-108 I think that top-level ontologies will become important for such things as automatic ontology mapping and data integration. And there are some top-level-ontologies, where much more thought is put into than in SUMO, just take a look at <a href="http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html">DOLCE</a> or <a href="http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/">BFO</a> (although I admit not to have studied BFO yet myself). I think that top-level ontologies will become important for such things as automatic ontology mapping and data integration. And there are some top-level-ontologies, where much more thought is put into than in SUMO, just take a look at DOLCE or BFO (although I admit not to have studied BFO yet myself).

]]> By: denny http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-107 denny Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:41:12 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-107 There are some other top-level ontologies, like <a href="http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html">DOLCE</a> or <a href="http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/">BFO</a>, which are much more consistent than SUMO (oh well, at least DOLCE is, I didn't take a deeper look at BFO yet). The point is, that with such top-level ontologies you can enable (or at least, help with) automatic ontology merging - and there it becomes very interesting in the Semantic Web context. There are some other top-level ontologies, like DOLCE or BFO, which are much more consistent than SUMO (oh well, at least DOLCE is, I didn’t take a deeper look at BFO yet).

The point is, that with such top-level ontologies you can enable (or at least, help with) automatic ontology merging – and there it becomes very interesting in the Semantic Web context.

]]> By: Ian Davis http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-106 Ian Davis Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:07:03 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-106 I agree they could have their uses. But the scale of the task is such that the ontology will be ripe for obsoletion by the time it is completed. I think the real growth area in the coming years will be in ontology mediation - converting between and interfacing with diverse ontologies. The innovation of OWL was to make terms addressable thereby enabling authors to make equivilence statements with reference to other ontologies. I agree they could have their uses. But the scale of the task is such that the ontology will be ripe for obsoletion by the time it is completed.

I think the real growth area in the coming years will be in ontology mediation – converting between and interfacing with diverse ontologies. The innovation of OWL was to make terms addressable thereby enabling authors to make equivilence statements with reference to other ontologies.

]]> By: Danny http://blog.iandavis.com/2004/12/sumo/comment-page-1#comment-105 Danny Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:49:58 +0000 http://iandavis.com/blog2/?p=833#comment-105 Heh, well put. I entirely agree with your general conclusions, though do reckon these things have their uses. Things like Sowa's <a href="http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm">top-level categories</a> could be very handy when modelling real-world stuff (assuming you have fat dictionary at hand). The SUO & stuff like Cyc could potentially be very useful when trying to discover connections between things - the problem is that they are presented as if the were <em>the only</em> universal ontology. If you imagine them to be one of many (i.e. don't take 'em too seriously), then hooks into them could be useful alongside more local ontologies. It's a pain that a lot of people seem to think the SemWeb approach is about a single, global vocab - as you suggest, the real strength here is in the flexibility and support for decentralisation and diversity. Heh, well put. I entirely agree with your general conclusions, though do reckon these things have their uses. Things like Sowa’s top-level categories could be very handy when modelling real-world stuff (assuming you have fat dictionary at hand).

The SUO & stuff like Cyc could potentially be very useful when trying to discover connections between things – the problem is that they are presented as if the were the only universal ontology. If you imagine them to be one of many (i.e. don’t take ‘em too seriously), then hooks into them could be useful alongside more local ontologies.

It’s a pain that a lot of people seem to think the SemWeb approach is about a single, global vocab – as you suggest, the real strength here is in the flexibility and support for decentralisation and diversity.

]]>