Re: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Regarding the question whether we should try for *one* standard
ontology,
or maintain a set of reference ontologies, I agree with Adam Pease:
[Adam Pease]
> . . . However, I would say that a single common
> ontology, to the degree practical, is the goal of this group, and has been
> voted on when the PAR was approved. I have found that there can be
> disagreement on wording that I thought was very clear, but the sections
> that seem to indicate this are (with my emphasis by bracketing with '*'s):
> . . .
Only if it turns out to be impossible to develop one "standard"
reference
ontology by the current procedures should we then lower our sights and
select some set of potentially useful reference ontologies as candidates
for
comparison and proof via extensive use.
Nicola's point is valid, that a set of "certified" reference
ontologies would be an advance on the current situation:
[Nicola Guarino]
> > . . . . Now
> > suppose that application 1 commits to reference ontology RO7, and
> > application 2 to RO2: the utility of this (wrt to the absence of a
> > reference ontology library) is in the fact that i) RO7 and RO2 are
> > "certified" as reflecting the view of a group of people of a certain
> > minimal size, with certain applications in mind, who have developed these
> > ontologies by adopting a controlled methodology; ii) the formalization of
> > RO7 and RO2 allows to establish (partial) mappings and understanding the
> > differences. This is a concrete step towards integration.
> >
But I think that the value of a single reference ontology is so much
greater than any set of incompatible but equally "certified" ontologies
that this should be our first aim, with multiple ontologies as a
fall-back goal in case the primary goal proves impractical.
One of the big unresolved questions is: "To what extent would the
actual existence of a aingle well-structured free upper ontology provide
the impetus for different groups to compromise their differences and
adapt their systems in the interest of program interoperability?"
I don't think that question can be answered until such an ontology
exists, and the IEEE-SUO seems to be the best bet at present to develop
such an ontology.
Pat Cassidy
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================