Re: SUO: Modularity
At 22:24 28/09/01 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>The most fundamental criticism of the SUMO proposal is its lack
>of modularity. Some people have maintained that this is an issue
>on which we should "agree to disagree".
>
>However, modularity is so essential to good design decisions
>in every area of engineering -- mechanical, civil, electrical,
>chemical, and most of all knowledge engineering and software
>engineering -- that any proposal to ignore or abandon modularity
>must be considered uninformed or incompetent.
I want to come in with a note of support for this. I have been reviewing
the SUO parts that relate to process and activity descriptions, and I have
strong concerns over the lack of a clear modular and extendible
approach. I was exp[ewctign to see something along the lines of the
PIF/NIST PSL core which is small and on which other aspects and extensions
can be based. There is a core "real" upper ontology in there of
course. Its just that you cannot tell where that ends and other stronger
(and less un9verally adopted and agreed) ontological commitments start.
I would argue for the notion of modularity and PARTIAL sharing of
ontological commitments in some communities. See the work on Partial Share
Views done at MIT Sloan School for example as part of the PIF work.
There is also the whole area of version control One monolithic ontology is
doomed to failure. Parts will be very stable and well justified and shared
across very broad communities,. other parts will not be adopted widely or
quickly be replaced. Knowing what you have committed to use will be a key
element. Just saying "I use SUO version 3" in its entirety is not a solution.
I think seeking to make ONE large SUO that is universally adopted and has
no modularity of components, and has a slow change control procedure
needing universal consensus for ALL aspects will not be a productive approach,
Austin