Re: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
John,
At 08:12 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I don't understand why you insist on splitting
>the group. The content requires the methodology,
>and the methodology requires the content.
The problem is that our charter as I understand it is to do
content. Without even a simple example illustrating in detail how IFF
might be used on a practical problem I don't see how you can advocate it as
a solution. For my part though, I don't want to block the progress of
those who advocate IFF, so the best way to do that is to have a separate
effort. I would hope that you would not stand in the way of those who wish
to work on SUMO as a proposed standard.
>Now that we have two separate content groups
>-- OpenCyc and SUMO -- it is even more imperative
>that we address the methodology of how these
>two ontologies can work together and with all the
>other ontological resources (WordNet, EDR, MeSH,
>UMLS, etc., etc., etc.) that any proposed
>standard will have to accommodate.
>
>Both SUMO and OpenCyc have developed separately
>for quite a long time, and they have made many
>decisions that have to be resolved if they are
>ever to be brought into a single framework.
>And the sooner we address those issues, the
>better it will be for everybody.
>
>If we can't get a consensus of the developers
>in this small committee, then there is no hope
>of convincing the rest of the world.
People here, like yourself, have a research agenda, that is independent
from the practical use of a standard. People are already using SUMO, so at
least some people (including some companies) are already convinced.
Adam
>John
>
>
>
>