Re: SUO: Procedural question
Bill,
[snip]
>I would suggest that what is needed, if this group is to remain relevant at
>all, is to do some garbage collection and to rethink the original goals of
>SUO. Here's a start:
>
> 1) How would SUO mesh with emerging web standards? This is no trivial
> question - it goes way beyond syntax.
My feeling is that since the emerging web standards do not primarily
address knowledge content, that products such as SUMO are sorely
needed. Even if web ontologies start off being created from scratch, in
time, I believe that communities will coalesce around particular content
standards so that they can communicate effectively. Since SUMO is already
available in DAML, I think it meets this need. I don't believe that any
rethinking of the original SUO goals is needed. The current charter meets
the need. I continue to be amazed that some people who don't agree with
the charter are here trying to block the effort. How that can be a good
use of their time or anyone else's, I don't know. If we had a group that
stuck to the charter, rather than some independent agenda, I think would
could converge quickly.
> 2) What properties do all SUO entries have to have?
Comprehensiveness, internal consistency, clarity, economy - all motherhood
sorts of things :-)
> 3) What are the concrete testable criteria for judging when we have
> something sufficient to fill the role of a standard? In other words,
> where's the finish line?
While it may be unsatisfying, most software has an open ended charter and
deciding when it is "done" is a somewhat arbitrary choice. We have several
indications of impending completeness on SUMO
1. The rate of change of the ontology is slowing significantly.
2. We've mapped over 50,000 WordNet terms to SUMO and found that most of
what isn't directly present in SUMO is of a very specific nature
It's always possible to release a version 2.0 of any software once bugs or
enhancements are agreed upon. No software, and no standard will ever be
"perfect", so one uses tests such as these to make a reasonable choice as
to when to release.
> 4) We can't do this forever. When is the cutoff date?
IEEE is relatively lenient in this regard, so I think the answer is roughly
the same as that to the above question.
> 5) By what criteria will the entries satisfying points 1, 2, and 3 be
> judged when we reach the date set forth by 4?
>
>Anyway, that should be enough to think of for now.
>
> .bill
>
>
>--
>Bill Andersen
>Chief Scientist, Ontology Works
>1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104
>Odenton, Maryland, 21113
>Mobile: 443-858-6444
>Office: 410-674-7600
>Web: http://www.ontologyworks.com
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571