SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Jim:
My votes with a brief explanation of my negative vote below.
best regards,
Mike Pool
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ballot Question #1:
>
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.52
>[April 25, 2003] posted at:
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.
>txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain> (containing the ontology) and
>http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
>(containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with the intent of
>developing it into a final SUO document. There is further intent to
>collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
>project.
>
>Background: Information which is not part of the motion or proposed
>starter document, but which may be helpful in appreciating its value, is
>as follows. The SUMO was first released on Dec 9, 2000. The first and
>all subsequent revisions have been public releases. SUMO is being used
>by (a small number) of companies and research institutions around the
>world. It has been subject to formal verification by an automated
>theorem prover. It has been divided into 11 modules to simplify reuse.
>SUMO is small enough to be easily learned (approximately 1000 terms, 4000
>axioms, 750 rules) but large enough to cover, at a high level, any domain
>of interest. It is well-axiomatized, including many rules, not just a
>type structure. The language it is written in is defined at
><http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html>. SUMO has been written independently
>of any particular theorem prover and has been used in several different
>systems including LOOM and SNARK. SUMO has also been used in the
>creation of a number of other freely available products, as listed below
>
> - WordNet Mappings: We've now mapped, by hand, all of the
>approximately 100,000 WordNet synsets to SUMO concepts. In addition to
>the nouns, we've mapped the verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>
>
> - SUMO-Compliant Domain Ontologies. These include ontologies for
>weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Quality of Service ontology,
>covering computer systems and networks, Ecommerce Services ontology,
>Ontology of biological viruses, Financial ontology, Ontology of terrain
>features, an ontology of Government, and a Periodic table of the
>elements.
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/index.html#download>
>
> - LOOM Translator for SUMO
><http://einstein.teknowledge.com:8080/Sumo2Loom/Sumo2Loom_register.jsp?fi
>leType=.tar&fileName=sumo2loom_b7.tar>
>
> - DAML translation of SUMO
><http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/SUMO.daml>
>
> - XML translation of SUMO
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/Merge-XML.txt> and KIF to
>XML translator <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/KIF2XML.txt>
>
> - open source browser download for SUMO
><http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/>
>
> - on-line SUMO browser
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=SUMO>
>
>All of these items are freely available through our Ontology home page:
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com> or directly at the links above.
>
>Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( YES )
>
>--------End Ballot Question #1----------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Ballot Question #2:
>
>Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO)
>commence work on a project to develop a standard for ontology
>specification and registration, according to the following guidelines:
>
> 1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three SUO
>candidate projects: IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
>
> 2. The standard shall specify an ontology registry, such as the
>metadata registries specified by ISO/IEC IS 11179-3, but with extensions
>that are required to define ontologies and to relate them to one another.
>
> 3. The ontology registry shall be organized as a collection of
>modules, related in a generalization/specialization hierarchy.
>
> 4. Each module shall consist of a theory together with
>documentation and other metadata. The theory shall consist of axioms
>and definitions stated in a logic-based language, such as those in the
>Common Logic (CL) framework.
>
> 5. The standard shall include the specification of a
>methodology for testing the theory part of any module for consistency,
>relating theories to one another in the generalization/specialization
>hierarchy, and combining two or more theories to derive a new theory
>that is larger and more specialized than the theories from which it was
>derived.
>
>Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( NO )
>
>--------End Ballot Question #2---------------------------------
I share Eric Peterson's concerns (see his June 2 note with subject "SUO: RE: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions" to the SUO list) about the proposal in ballot question 2. I concur that ontologies should be modular and extensible as John Sowa and others have regularly noted. But it does not follow from this fact that the SUO IEEE effort should implement a system containing two upper ontologies, SUMO and OpenCyc, between which there is a great deal of conceptual overlap or that a SUO should take the form of a registry. Responding to a mandate to generate a SUO with a general registry containing distinct but mostly overlapping upper ontologies seems a bit like returning two taped together dictionaries and specifications on the kind of tape used in response to a request to generate a standard dictionary for the English language (a standard to which the desirability of extensibility and modularity would also apply).
FWIW, I encourage the OpenCyc group to resubmit OpenCyc as a stand alone ontology. I would readily vote for it as a good starting point for an upper ontology. Should it and the SUMO effort both be accepted as starter documents, each could be developed and the group could discuss and decide at the end of the day which is the most deserving of IEEE standard status.