RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Hi Bill;
Thanks for your comment.
I agree pretty much with the value everything you advocate except that I
don't consider it to be that standards related. I think we, as a group,
are forgetting that we call ourselves a standards group. My experience
is that the marketplace is already perfectly capable of documenting,
advertising, and sharing it's content ontologies. Adam just gave us a
URL for his. OpenCyc can be found at opencyc.org. Then there is the
list of twelve who's URL has been posted.
But having said that, it would be admirable for some group to maintain
such a registry to help the marketplace do their ontology development
duty. But it's now clear to me that we need to clean house, get out of
the development business and into the standards business. If there is
no suitable de facto standard, we shut down or become something else.
FWIW,
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burkett, Bill [mailto:WBurkett@modulant.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: Eric Peterson
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
Re:
> SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
> Eric:
>
> Your two options leave out a third possibility: acknowledge that
> communities are going to develop their own ontologies and find a way
> accommodate them. One of the working group's task then is to
find/develop
> methods and principles for mapping between ontologies (which I believe
the
> Lattice of Theories/IFF support, though I haven't been following
closely
> enough to be sure). This obviates the need, or even the desirability,
of
> a canonical "go-to" ontology and and still permits
high-quality/well-known
> ontologies to become widely used or adopted.
>
> I would like to propose an even more radically different motion for
this
> group: the adoption of a principle called the "Semantic Prime
Directive":
> Each information community has a perfectly valid and legitimate right
to,
> and ownership of, their own ontology and semantics thereof. In other
> words, no standards organization has the right or ability to force or
> dictate how another organization chooses to use or name their
> data/ontology.
>
> I think "standard" ontologies and semantics will emerge through the
> interaction and evolution of ontologies via mapping and transformation
> bridges. (The de facto standard you mention below.)
>
> Bill
>
>
> William C. Burkett
> Senior Information Engineer
> Modulant
> 562-495-6500 x2013
> 562-495-6509 Fax
> wburkett@modulant.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:29 AM
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool;
> > apease@ks.teknowledge.com; clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> > Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
Re:
> > SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see below:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:33 AM
> > > To: Eric Peterson; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool;
> > apease@ks.teknowledge.com;
> > > clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> > > Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> > >
> > > Dear Eric,
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am just a pragmatist, and will settle for what can be
> > > done rather than go for what I know cannot be done.
> > >
> > > What cannot be done (today or in the next 5 years) is to create
> > > a single canonical ontology that will gain universal, or even
> > > very widespread acceptance.
> >
> > [ELP] Right. I don't think that the most optimistic of us would
think
> > anything of the sort.
> >
> > Given that, and given my increasing concern about our present
> > direction
> > and progress, I formally move that:
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > __________
> > ____
> > WHEREAS, committees are very special purpose organizations
> > and by their
> > nature are good at only certain sorts of tasks, and
> >
> > WHEREAS, a standards committee is about the most ill suited body
> > imaginable for crafting/engineering or perhaps even merging
components
> > into a large and complex standard (such as an SUO), and
> >
> > WHEREAS, only unified hierarchical bodies such as companies
> > are known to
> > craft/engineer large technical results of quality, and
> >
> > WHEREAS, standards veterans are observed to agree that
standardization
> > can not happen without a de facto standard, and
> >
> > WHEREAS, from these assertions, it follows that there are just two
> > reasonable courses of action for the SUO:
> >
> > That we
> >
> > 1) Go back and develop ontologies in our own preferred
> > religious camps,
> > hopefully learn a bit from each other and wait (i) until the
> > marketplace
> > (in the widest sense of the term "marketplace" to include academia
and
> > government organizations) learns what formal ontologies are,
> > (ii) until
> > formal ontologies exhibit some serious popular usage, and
> > (iii) until a
> > leading ontology emerges. This group could continue to be a
valuable
> > forum for the sifting of ideas and the fostering of colaborations,
but
> > it would no longer call itself a standards group.
> >
> > 2) Or, determine the best of breed ontology as our first and
> > chief order
> > of business. This would be accomplished by agreeing on metrics and
> > weightings of metrics and by scoring candidate ontologies
accordingly.
> > This, after some review and revision period would be the
> > initial version
> > of the standard. Merging of other bodies of axioms would then be
the
> > job of the marketplace. They can afford it and they can
> > command/achieve
> > enough unity to do it. And it is decidedly clear that we can do
> > neither. When these merges or other changes are proven in that
> > marketplace, then they would be suitable candidates for later
versions
> > of the standard.
> >
> > Now, therefore be it
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the immediately preceding choice "2)" concerning the
> > choice of a best of breed, and a subsequent revision period
> > be the prime
> > focus of the SUO.
> >
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
> >