RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Pierre,
Sorry, finger trouble with my previous reply - there were no comments.
See below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de]
> Sent: 05 June 2003 12:07
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> > Dear Pierre,
> >
> > So you think content is what is important, and it is so important
> > you are adamant that we should not use an environment to manage it?
>
> This is a misrepresentation of my claim.
MW: It is what you seemed to be saying, but I am glad if that is not right.
> The content that
> needs to be manage in
> such environment is not the raw material. It is what we
> retain from the raw
> material.
MW: Hmm. But don't you want to know how what was retained was chosen?
Apparently not. Me, I like that kind of transparency. It is where management
of content starts.
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Yes, so it seems to me. The environment for managing the
> content should be
> informed by the content.
MW: What do you mean here by "informed by the content"?
> We should not obsess with a
> structure which puts heavy
> constraints on the way we shall be able to work with the
> sources and a priori
> structural constraints on the kind of content we shall be
> able to produce.
MW: Why do you think this is being proposed? It is quite the
opposite to what I think is being proposed.
>
> We have to extract content (eventually from structured
> sources and we could use
> SUMO and OpneCyc browsers if that is an environment in your
> sense, but this is
> more or less anecdotal since proposers of canfidate standards
> are asked to
> produce flat files which to date are hardly structured).
MW: Quite. Getting away from flat files as the medium in which
the ontologies are managed is one of the things I think a Registry
is about.
> The content we will care for will have to be structured in an
> environment
> eventually.
MW: Why only when we have some content we decide we like? Why not
use structured methods to help us sort the alternatives and compare
them? Does that have to be made harder than is necessary?
> Again, This environment should be designed in a
> way suitable to
> manage the content (modular if there are genuine alternative,
> maybe), not the
> way around.
MW: You should eb able to do this as well of course, and distinguish
different levels of authority.
>
> Do you think you missed that or do you find that arguable?
MW: The difference between us seems to be the start point. I would
argue for a start point that includes assessing and comparing the
source material (or authoring it for that matter). You seem to want
to restrict things to that which is "blessed".
> Pierre
>
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Principal Consultant
> > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@shell.com
> > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >
> >
>