RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Eric,
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: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
> Sent: 06 June 2003 19:29
> 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
MW: Apart from all the others (if consensus is your objective).
> 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
MW: Well I've worked in standards organisations that managed this.
>
> WHEREAS, standards veterans are observed to agree that standardization
> can not happen without a de facto standard, and
MW: I am a standards veteran, and it is not true that a de facto
standard is required before it can be blessed.
>
> 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,
MW: The more we do apart, the more work we will have to do eventually
to bring it back together, apart from doing a lot of the same stuff
multiple times.
> (ii) until
> formal ontologies exhibit some serious popular usage, and
MW: Ontologies are unlikely to get serious air time until they are of
sufficient quality, so we have a chicken and egg situation here. This
is one of the things a body like the SUO can really do in establishing
something that has quality so that it does get used.
> (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.
MW: All the IT related standards groups I know about are as much about
research and collaboration as they are about standardisation. The
reason for the standardisation emphasis is that the results only have
significant value if there is widespread consensus.
>
> 2) Or, determine the best of breed ontology as our first and
> chief order
> of business.
MW: I don't think there is any ontology that is good enough yet to be
considered best of anything. That is a big part of the problem.
> 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.
MW: Well we could do this, but it would be largely irrelevant. For starters
you would have to pick either a 3D or a 4D foundation, and then you
immediately loose about half the people. Now wouldn't that be clever.
>
> 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.
MW: I think this is what SUMO are doing anyway.
>
>
> -Eric
>
>