SUO: Re: Re: W3C ontology requirements
Well I don't know anything about all that (below); but when you come right
down to it SUO is the best thing we got going. I mean I went looking for a
ontology with sufficient breadth to cover the things I was thinking about
that included an open group of people actively building it. SUO was the
only one that I found .. and it even had the ontology browser :) So
everybody seems to love to bash SUO, but can anyone point to a better
ontology with those requirements? Cyc was a close second, but it does not
have an active open group. As far as compliance is concerned, personally
IDGAD.... any ontology is only as good as it's support by a community of
active users.... trying to legislate it as a standard is, imho, stupid.
... just had to get that off my chest.
As to webizing, I'll see if I can come up with some more tangible
suggestions later.
Seth Russell
----- in response to -----
From: "murray j bent" <murrayb@imailbox.com>
> The field of requirements engineering has contributed excellent GUIs that
allow efficient traversals tracing documents back to their root
requirements. The Teknowledge browser could support such links, but
> unfortunately, SUMO did not follow a logical process of development.
> It is kept current merely by adding the 'flavor of the month' concerns on
top, whatever they may be this month who knows - there's no plan.
>
> There are no experiments or tests to choose which options better support
requirements. Once again, it would be nice to have a GUI that supported
traceability from the tests to the specs to the requirements, a simple link
would do. The content is just not there.
>
> Enough of GUIs! What's needed is the will to interoperate, and that is
clearly absent, dead, gone and DOA.
>