RE: SUO: Re: Registry etc.
Dear Mike,
OK, your note below makes your concerns clear.
A registry is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Does that help?
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: Mike Pool [mailto:mpool@iet.com]
> Sent: 06 June 2003 13:26
> To: Cathy Legg; Eric Peterson
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
>
>