Re: SUO: IFF Updates 2002-Jan-02, Comments Requested
Jim,
Thanks for the response. I'll look forward to the next response since
this was really a single comment. If IFF is considered responsive to the
PAR then it seems to me that KIF alone is equally (and trivially)
responsive. But, I'm open to further education certainly.
Adam
At 11:38 AM 1/11/2002 -0500, Jim Farrugia wrote:
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571