SUO: Request that KER article be amended
At 17:32 2002-02-18 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> 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.
I read the article and I agree exactly with Matthew's summary: "it is within what I have come to see as reasonable practice in papers that result from standards development activities".
In other academic areas where standards have been developed (e.g., learning technology), there is certainly reporting of the current progress on the standards activities and (likely) the author's own opinions on suggested approaches, which might include the author's particular positions he/she is championing. Ditto for non-academic areas.
The paper makes it clear that the both documents are "starter documents" and "This paper addresses the SUO effort mainly from the perspective of the SUMO" (not a surprise).
Regarding some of Murray's specific points:
> ...
> It is unacceptable for Teknowledge to use the name of the
> IEEE SUO working group without permission in this article .
I don't need permission from Coca-Cola (a world known registered trademark) to report on the activities of Coca-Cola. There is no such permission requirements from IEEE's point of view.
> The intent of the article is clearly to promote SUMO, and
Uh huh. That's why people write articles about things.
> again Teknowledge has resorted to unbridled hype as a technique.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but a WG should not be in the business of offering unsolicited opinions on topics that are outside standards development.
> 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'.
Regarding the status of IEEE SUO WG, I don't believe any false claims were made in the article. If you have a problem with the article, why don't you simply write to the editor yourself? I don't think this WG needs to spend time reviewing articles.
> ...
> I am noting the many many incidents where Teknowledge has
> tried to make SUMO appear to be an IEEE standard.
I see no such evidence in this article. Although a mistake had been made previous in a TOG (The Open Group) document, Teknowledge had nothing to do with the mistake.
In summary, IEEE SUO WG should take no action.
-FF
_______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure