RE: Over the next few months...
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with David, and think we should at least start by trying to find
some basic minima that is common ground.
I am rather used to integrating different models (ontologies) by looking for
underlying concepts when there appears to be an incompatibility between
different models that independently make sense. We seem to have a number of
starting points. Why not start by trying to integrate them and see how far
we get?
By the way, if my experience is anything to go by, I should set some very
low expectations on what is really agreed within 5 months. If we could agree
some 20-50 core concepts I would be pleasantly surprised.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Exchange e-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
Compuserve e-mail: Matthew_West@compuserve.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Whitten [mailto:whitten@NETCOM.COM]
> Sent: None
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Over the next few months...
>
>
>
> Since this working group has a Standard Upper Ontology as our
> deliverable,
> I think it would be useful to discuss some of the content we intend
> for the SUO. I think most of us agree that there will be some
> constants
> representing concepts, with some relations between them.
> We also agree that there will be some logical axioms defining
> the constants
> beyond the simple instance-of hierarchy, and the simple
> generalization-of
> hierarchy.
>
> I think some very dedicated people have put together the PSL-Core,
> and some of their axioms are suitable for inclusion in the SUO.
>
> There is also a great deal of work that has been done by the
> Cycorp team,
> and they have shown great generosity in sharing their Upper Ontology
> with the knowledge representation community.
>
> John Sowa's work with Conceptual Graphs is well known, as well as that
> community's contribution to Knowledge Representation over the years.
>
> I have looked over some of the work by ISO TC184/SC4/WG10 at
> http://www.pdtsolutions.co.uk/iideas/ and see a great deal of
> hard work
> has been done by them as well.
>
> The work at Stanford KSL has supported work by many diverse groups,
> and has been an integral part of many practical efforts on ontologies.
>
> From discussions on this list, I can see that there are many
> people who
> have been working in this field and making substantial
> progress unbeknownst
> to each other.
>
> Since we have not had the privilege of working in person with
> each other,
> and since we have about five months left of the initial
> evaluation phase
> left, I think we should not plan to make decisions off-line,
> but rather we
> should reach consensus through this mailing list.
>
> Does this correspond to everyone else's understanding, goals,
> and plans?
>
> David (whitten@netcom.com) (713) 791-1414 ext 6116
>