Re: Status of SUMO?
Adam,
> SUMO has been fairly stable for the past two years, but can certainly be
> refined. We'd welcome comments on specific terms or axioms.
Is there some plan to adopt and apply (or at least explicit) lexical and
structural conventions within SUMO? I am particularly thinking about the
name of relations with respect to the order of the arguments: for many
relations (e.g. caseRole relations, and for all functions) the common
reading convention is followed but for most second-order relations, the
opposite reading is adopted, e.g. for "instance" and "subclass" whose
counterparts in RDFS (with the same order of arguments) are named "type"
and "subClassOf"; the common reading convention (for the same order of
arguments) would recommend the identifiers "type" and "supertype" (and
for their inverses: "instance" and "subtype").
More details and related lexical and structural conventions are in
http://www.webkb.org/doc/conventions.html
Philippe