SUO: RE: Request that KER article be amended
Dear Colleagues,
I find myself leaping to Adam and Ian's defence for once.
I have carefully read the paper Murray objects to, and find that
it is within what I have come to see as reasonable practice in
papers that result from standards development activities.
Adam and Ian have been doing work in this IEEE Working Group and
are quite entitled to write about it in academic or other fora.
The paper:
- does make clear that there are two "starter documents",
- does present a more or less balanced view of various
issues that it chooses to highlight - all be it necessarily
very simplified,
- does blow the SUMO trumpet (and what else should it do?)
Some might find the suggestion that people should start using
the SUMO a little premature. However, I would argue that
trying to use it would be most likely to bring weaknesses to
the surface, and whether or not that happens testing by
doing can only be a good thing.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: murray j bent [mailto:murrayb@imailbox.com]
> Sent: 17 February 2002 16:02
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Request that KER article be amended
>
>
>
> cc: James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
>
> 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 beed 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'.
>
> http://projects.teknowledge.com/HPKB/Publications/KER.ps
>
> I am noting the many many incidents where Teknowledge has
> tried to make SUMO appear to be an IEEE standard.
>
> Murray Bent
> Member IEEE SA
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> This email server is running an evaluation copy of the
> MailShield anti-
> spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any
> questions about this message. MailShield product info:
www.mailshield.com