Re: SUO: Procedural question
Bill,
At 01:31 AM 5/10/2002 -0400, Bill Andersen wrote:
>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.
I think Jim was suggesting that people look to their own needs with regards
to the PAR first. If your company's needs are addressed in part by the
PAR, then move down to the next level of asking whether the PAR is
addressed by the current starter documents. Are any of OntologyWorks'
needs addresses by the PAR?
>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.
I agree completely with that. I expect Jim does too. Another question to
ask though is whether a standards proposal must have a large user community
before it completes the standardization process. That would be too heavy a
burden. Every product would have to be a de facto standard before becoming
a de jure standard with that approach.
>Does this mean that Ontology Works has to field enough people to build a SUO
>submission of our own?
No, but it does suggest that you should make specific change proposals to
the existing starter documents, unless you have an alternate proposal. Of
course, I'm speaking more broadly to the group here since you have in fact
made several change proposals to SUMO that we've incorporated.
> 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.
I don't see that follows. Creation of criteria for ontology "goodness" I
suspect would be even harder than creation of an ontology. Plenty of good
products, including standards, are created without a priori precise quality
criteria. Our criteria, such as they are, already exist and are embodied
in the current PAR.
Adam
> .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