RE: SUO: Re: Registry etc.
At 07:04 PM 6/5/2003 -0500, Cathy Legg wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Eric Peterson wrote:
>
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > > Please spare me the false dilemma and histrionics.
>> >
>> > This is not a false dilemma, and it is "history", not
>> > histrionics. Please look at the SUO archives to see what
>> > was happening. All that discussion is on the record.
>> >
>> > Without a joint effort, we go back to the status of a few
>> > months ago, which was a moribund email list with ZERO
>> > collaboration among the three groups.
>>
>> [ELP] I would vote for a simple joint effort, but the language of motion
>> #2 entirely avoids talk of a collaboration goal. And it adds the
>> controversial registry.
>
>As someone actively engaged in development on a very large ontology,
>Matthew and John's arguments for the registry seemed to me to be simple
>software-development common-sense. QA for ontologies is *extremely*
>challenging - possibly more so than for any other form of software
>engineering - so the more supportive tools and processes for this kind
>of work the better.
>
>I've been trying to follow the messages complaining about the
>registry idea but for the life of me I can't make mental contact with the
>problem. Something about 'content' being managed by the registry, but in
>my understanding, any ontology is to some degree 'content all the way
>up'. That's why you have one. So yes, content will be managed. Is that so
>wrong?
Cathy,
The issue is that it's not clear what the function of the registry would be, etc. I am, of course, all for QA, motherhood, the war against terrorism and baseball on sunny afternoons. The concern is not a concern with content being managed by the registry, I'm not sure which messages you read, it is an issue of what exactly the point of the registry is with respect to the SUO objectives and how much diverse content it will manage. If it is just an end in itself, i.e., the SUO is a registry, it represents little progress in the efforts to come up with a SUO over and above efforts like those that can be seen at the Bateman URL to which John has pointed us. If it is a tool for intricately interweaving all kinds of contributions, each of which has content that significant overlaps (but, of course, with slightly different labeling and representational approaches), with other contributions to the SUO, without trying to significantly vet and choose from amongst different repre!
sentational conventions, then I see it as requiring very high maintenance but being of very little service.
The ensuing discussion suggested that the proposed registry is many things to many people, so I'm still not sure whether the above concerns were justified. Or, one might say that since the function of the registry with respect to the ultimate SUO objectives just isn't clear to anyone, my concerns about it are well-founded.
John's recent restatements have made me feel a lot better (but largely because there is no mention of a registry).
best,
Mike
>> I tried to get a simple clause added to motion #2 that expressly
>> specified a goal of collaboration you said that it would blow apart the
>> coalition.
>>
>> Adam, would your team leave if motion #2 stated that it's chief goal was
>> a third merged ontology that seamlessly coalesced and improved the two
>> content ontologies?
>>
>> John D., Cathy, Fritz, would Cyc leave the table?
>
>I wouldn't personally wish to, I can't speak for Cycorp.
>Cathy.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
>Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
>www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
>
> download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------