RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Matthew;
When reading John's reply, I noted that I had missed you lower comments. Please see below:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:19 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: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re:
> SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
[ELP]
<snip>
> > 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.
[ELP] Please not that "1)" is not what I am proposing. I'm simply claiming that it is the only sensible alternative to "2)" if you accept my claims - which you don't.
>
> > (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.
[ELP] See above.
>
> > (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.
[ELP] If alcohol, tobacco, and firearms can be handled by one group, then maybe I'm being silly for having a problem with mixing creation and standardization ;^) Perhaps my experience with Lisp Standardization was non-representative of other standards bodies. But I was kindly redirected when I wanted to try and work in my metaobject protocol (MOP) extensions to the MOP before the MOP itself was standardized. I must have looked naïve then to those who were focused enough to standardize 1000 pages of language description in their spare time and in the time that they could garner from their employers. They insisted on functionality being thoroughly beaten on and used in the marketplace.
If I have drawn the correct conclusions from my experience, we are contemplating something much more inappropriate.
A handful of competing vendors had already implemented Guy Steele's book "Common Lisp, the Language" I&II. This was our "de facto standard".
> >
> > 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.
[ELP] I disagree with your assertion. I don't think we can have an informed opinion on that without doing the metrics, review, and comparison that I am suggesting. I have six years of experience extending and applying one of the competitors. Maybe you are my peer in that regard. But reading a paper containing gripes about a candidate ontology certainly doesn't qualify a person to judge it's overall quality and usability.
And if the "best of breed" competition process proves you to be right in your assertion, we would not have wasted a bit of time. That comparison and the criticisms that come from it would be the perfect starting point to do the merge that Adam wants.
>
> > 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.
[ELP] My customer needs basic structural axioms for content long before worrying about 3D vs. 4D. We need to federate some simple yet important databases.
I've recommended to this group before that we need to set priorities of this sort. Let's not get hung up on hurdles that we don't need to cross for a while. We do, of course, need to look ahead.
We are proposing to eat the proverbial elephant here. We have to start really simple and just take one bite.
We, the marketplace, need the process of transitioning into ontological technology to be, therefore, broken into chunks, prioritized, and staged. Each step needs to be a useful, simple, low-risk transition.
A series of standards with gradually increasing sophistication, I claim, would be a powerful assistance to speeding up the use of ontologies in the marketplace.
> >
> > 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.
[ELP] They are merging; while my "de facto standards" proposal is letting the marketplace do the merging.
Or maybe you are agreeing with me on this point. One could say that Teknolwedge (as a member of the marketplace) is doing it's duty to merge as the "de facto" motion defines that it should. Hey, maybe the marketplace works ;^)
> >
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
[ELP]
Cheers,
-Eric