Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
John,
Thanks for your flexibility here. I'm still not sure that I understand what's being proposed we to revise Motion 2 along these lines. Is it that SUO be some conglomeration of largely overlapping upper ontologies that may or may not be ultimately adjusted, merged, revised into some standard orntology? Or is it that we accept OpenCyc and SUMO as starter documents, and possibly others along the way. with an understanding that at some later point we will reassess to determine worthiness of the resulting effort as an IEEE standard ontology (perhaps by merging and hopefully by extending and revising but certainly by showing themselves to be sufficiently extensible and modular.). If the latter, I'm willing to vote for the proposal. .
The second half of 5 makes me a little nervous and I worry that it complicate things unnecessarily. Why would legacy systems and pragmatic alternatives also be part of a mature IEEE standard? (I'm really not objecting to it at this point, but would like to hear more justification)
Mike
At 01:05 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Eric,
>
>If we could really get everyone to agree, I would be
>willing to withdraw motion #2 in favor of a new motion.
>Following are my major concerns:
>
> 1. Modularity and extensibility are essential.
>
> 2. A methodology of the kind that IFF provides
> (but not necessary the full IFF theory) must
> be available to relate and combine the modules.
>
> 3. SUMO and OpenCyc are partners on an equal
> footing (i.e., no special motion for SUMO
> that makes it different from OpenCyc).
>
> 4. Other projects, such as the ones on Bateman's
> list, should be able to join the coaltion if
> and when they wish to do so.
>
> 5. A privileged upper ontology as a "reference
> model" could be admitted as a desirable goal,
> but the framework should accommodate legacy
> systems and pragmatic alternatives that are
> not 100% compatible with the reference model.
>
> 6. I find Matthew West's arguments in favor of
> a registry compelling. I cannot see any
> reason for not having a registry or something
> like it. But if the word "registry" is an
> obstacle to agreement, I would be happy to call
> it anything else -- provided it supports the
> functions that Matthew believes it should.
>
>As far as I can see, these six points are compatible
>with the current wording of motion #2, but if anybody
>finds it important to adopt different names for the
>same functions, I don't really care.
>
>John
>