Re: SUO: Request that KER article be amended
I agree with Murray Bent's objections:
> I strongly object to the wording of the promotional article
> "IEEE Standard Upper Ontology: A Progess Report" by guess who?
> Teknowledge.
> http://projects.teknowledge.com/HPKB/Publications/KER.ps
> It is unacceptable for Teknowledge to use the name of the IEEE SUO
> working group without permission in this article . The intent of the
> article is clearly to promote SUMO, and again Teknowledge has
resorted > to unbridled hype as a technique.
> I move that the Editor of Knowledge Engineering Review be asked to
> retract portions of the article confusing Teknowledge's inhouse
> ontology development with the IEEE SUO WG, and the conclusion be
> removed entirely. It is baseless (or at least based only on
> self-citation), biased, and no permission has been requested or
> granted by this group for such a conclusion as to the maturity of any
> documents. The best that has been claimed is that these docs are only
> a 'start'.
I second that motion.
John Sowa