Re: SUO: Procedural question
On 5/10/02 0:11, "jim.s3@juno.com" <jim.s3@juno.com> wrote:
>
> SUO,
>
> To play on the words of JFK,
>
> "Ask not what SUO could do for others, ask what it could do for you."
>
> Standards are typically, and I suggest best, driven by those with a
> self-interest, usually business. That's what motivates them to do some actual
> work and also to compromise in order to get it done.
>
> But these individuals (or organizations that employ them) do not need to agree
> on the purpose or why they are doing it. Member purposes can vary widely.
> This is why standards don't typically start with requirements documents.
>
> So, when people ask for an explanation of the group purpose, they really
> should be asking themselves what their own purpose is with SUO. If they have
> one, that should motivate them to help develop it.
Hi, Jim..
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Certainly my company has its purposes,
but few to none of them are answered by any of the existing proposals. We
as a company, and I personally, would like to see an ontology standard
emerge, but only if it is of use not only to Ontology Works, but also to as
broad a community as possible. Lacking this, the rationale for building a
standard itself is undermined.
Does this mean that Ontology Works has to field enough people to build a SUO
submission of our own? We don't have the resources to do that. As JLD has
rightly pointed out on several occasions, most of us on this list are
participating out of the kindness of our own hearts, not because we're being
funded to build an ontology standard. So, I think the answer to this is no,
and that those of us who do participate for free do have some right to
demand that the group set up standards that proposals be judged by.
.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