SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft -- *Date 01 Feb 2002
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
SUO WG Members,
In my opinion it is a fundamental mistake to specify
a particular logical language, for example, KIF or
any other, as a part of the compliance conditions.
This would be as bad a practice as stipulating
that a compliant ontology has to be written in
English as opposed to French or German, or to
use an even more notorious analogy, that
a program has to be written in ADA.
Requirements should be specified at a higher level
of abstraction and generality than any particular
ontology oriented logical formalism.
Among the more deleterious side-effects of
thinking in only one language is a constant
tendency to confuse that language with reality.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Folks,
> A while back we had some discussion about conformance clauses.
> Frank Farance and others also had some good input on sections
> that would need to be included in a formal draft SUO. Ian and
> I have put together a document that attempts to meet this need
> and incorporates as much of the input we've been given as possible.
> I've posted the draft at:
>
> http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf
>
> Note that to keep the document to a reasonable size for downloading,
> I've referenced, but not included the latest SUMO draft that would
> be part of a final version of the document.
>
> Constructive feedback would be welcome.
>
> Adam
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤