Re: SUO: Procedural question
Hi Frank,
Sorry you somehow misunderstood my point due to my elliptical (as usual)
and hasty wording. Some clarifications below.
Quoting you from: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08437.html
> The IEEE requirement for consensus building is 75% in sponsor ballot. Sometimes, as Jim >pointed out, projects discover that they may need to split into separate, independent >projects. Each project has its own 75% consensus requirement. If people want to continue >SUMO, OpenCyc, IFF, etc., as separate projects, they may. If they want to continue them in >the same project, they'll have to get to some agreement (merge, face-off, something new, >etc.) that gets to 75% <-- no different than another standards projects with competing >ideas/technologies.
When I quickly quoted "builds consensus" from Jim's message, I had in mind
*consensus of use* not consensus on standard approval, the same for
OpenCyc versus SUMO.
IEEE "blessing" is one thing, real usefulness and use another.
> However, your W3C vs. IEEE comparison is apples and oranges. In your URL regarding W3C and >its Semantic Web (I largely agree with those points on Slashdot), it discusses (1) the >feasibility of the technology with respect to (paraphrasing) "all the pages on the web", and >(2) the adoption of this technology for a significant portion of the web.
I am glad you "largely agree" with the points on Slashdot.
> The SUO work doesn't frame itself in addressing all the needs of the web (it audience is >probably different) and the SUO work doesn't set itself out to be adopted (large scale) by >the web.
I never meant to suggest that SUO will have to be adopted for any use on the web.
The "points on Slashdot" are just to highlight the difficulties of having a standard
(whether official or "de facto") really adopted by a significant segment of the
intended user community.
To remind of one of my previous metaphors, yes, ADA is in use, but by how much
of the originally intended audience?
> So it's not the IEEE is more "powerful", per se, than W3C ... it's that W3C has a different >audience and different kind of expectation (with respect to adoption, etc.) than IEEE SUO.
If you DO have a more precise idea of what the "intended audience" for SUO is,
I would very much like to know this.
The SUO Scope & Purpose is so broad that it *does* in fact
cover "E-commerce applications" a.k.a. the web!
If you have some "niche market" in which you can make good business with SUO,
so far, so good, for you...
The (possible) trouble would be that the existence of SUO as an IEEE standard
will hamper the trial and adoption of more flexible and advanced ontology
interoperability schemes by "lay" users.
Just by the usual excuse, "nobody ever got fired for using IBM (or, today,
Micro$oft)", even if the outcome is disastrous.
The very existence of a *loosy* SUO standard that will not be able to really
take off will nevertheless "clog" the "seeding communities" of users which
are the breeding ground of true *innovation* (NOT the M$ like "innovation").
The semantic web stuff is already doing much harm in that realm with RDF,
DAML, DCMI, SHOE, SOAP, (more letter soup anyone?).
Best.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The sage (the person in accordance with Tao) have no particular interest.
They see all people (equally) as straw dogs." - Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching
From N. 5 in http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/laotzu/taoteching.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29