Re: SUO: IFF Updates 2002-Jan-02, Comments Requested

[Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>]

Adam,

Thank you for your comments. Below is a response to the first point
in your comment 2 -- how [the IFF] addresses the PAR.
 
A response to your second point in comment 2 -- what the IFF 
provides beyond KIF -- is being prepared.

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We think the IFF in its Introduction does address the PAR.
 (The latest version of the Introduction is at 
  http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/versions/20020102/IFFFoundationOntology.htm  )

*  The Introduction cites the first sentence in the Scope section of 
   PAR, along with the INTEROPERABILITY part of the Purpose section of 
   the PAR, and says:
   
         "The work presented here proposes a framework, the Information 
          Flow Framework (IFF) to accomplish this goal of interoperability, 
          as well as the goals related to automated reasoning and application 
          areas."
          ...
          "The IFF supports this interoperability by its architecture 
	  (Figure 1 and Section 2) and its use of a particular branch 
          of mathematics known as category theory."

*  We recognize that the IFF does not offer one single upper ontology. Rather,
   the IFF provides, as called for at the end of the Scope section of the PAR,
   "a structure and a set of general concepts upon which domain ontologies
   (e.g., medical, financial, engineering) could be constructed."

*  Indeed, although the intended interpretation of the following sentence
   from the Scope section of the PAR might lead one towards an upper ontology
   such as the SUMO, we feel that the IFF, with its framework that is built 
   to enable interoperability among domain ontologies, also speaks to this 
   sentence.

     "An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta,
     generic, abstract and philosophical, and therefore general enough 
     to address (at a high level) a broad range of domain areas."

If there are other specific sections of the PAR that you feel the IFF 
has not addressed, please let us know which sections, and we will respond.


Thanks,

Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim,
   Since you've asked for comments I feel I need to reiterate

1.  My respect for the fact that the IFF team has made a substantial, 
specific proposal in "standards words".

2.  My concern that no one has answered how this addresses the PAR and 
provides anything beyond what the KIF language already provides for 
representing and reasoning about real world 
examples.  <http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg06027.html>

Adam