Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Speaking as a consumer of any potential SUO methadology, I think that
John's motion #2 is preferable. Look at the situation as it exists
today. If I publish I have about 3 choices in which to encode my
data:: SUO, OpenCy, and OWL . Even though many of the concepts that
underlay these ontologies are very similar, and any of them would do the
job, I still must choose to rely on either a proprietory corporation's
efforts or a industry consortium. It is a difficult choice. Which
scheme of things will be around in 5 years, in 20 years ? On the
other hand if the IEE can establish methodology such that my data can be
translated into whatever my target audience is using at the moment, it
doesn't really matter which one I choose. John's motion, if I
understand it correctly, will make all participating ontologies much
more valuable.
Just my 2 cents worth as a consumer ...
Seth Russell
http://robustai.net/mentography/mentography.html