Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
John,
Sounds good. I think we're in agreement.
Adam
At 01:11 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Yes, that's a good way to state it:
>
>> I wonder if the issue is a matter of emphasis. The notion of a
>> registry seems sensible to me. I'd like to think that the way we've
>> used a web interface to CVS is consistent with this. We've released
>> publicly every version of SUMO since its inception, and tried to
>> document all the sources in the CVS comments, or in the SUMO versions
>> themselves. This can be viewed at
>> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/Merge.txt>
>
>You can think of a registry as something like a CVS repository
>with "structured comments" that would enable software to find and
>use the different kinds of metadata in a more systematic way.
>
>For example, you could point at a particular axiom or definition
>and ask "Find who wrote/modified that axiom when and why in which
>version(s) of which source(s)." And the tools could trace through
>the chain of metadata pointers to find the original source, all
>intervening modifications, and all pertinent documentation.
>
>The purpose of a metadata standard is to enable independently
>developed tools to work on common formats. Anybody could develop
>the tools -- universities, research groups, or commercial vendors.
>
>> The focus of the standards effort though seems to me to be not the
>> tools we use to capture the content, but the content itself. Setting up
>> our CVS-based registry took an irrelevant amount of time in the context
>> of the larger project. If someone has a better, free, implemented
>> system, that would be great.
>
>I agree. As Matthew and I have been trying to say, the focus
>is on the content, and the tools are intended to help us
>organize, develop, test, maintain, search, and use the content.
>
>John