RE: SUO WG Status
Dear Jim,
Perhaps this would be a good time to report offlist activity.
As you know, The 4D Ontology Proposal is essentially to adopt and develop ISO 15926.
This consists of a data model and a population of reference data as a core ontology
with derived/more complex concepts being defined as templates in terms of the core
ontology.
- The data model became an International Standard at the end of 2003.
- The first 10,000 plus reference data items passed their Technical Specification
ballot earlier this year.
- A proposal for the addition of geometry concepts is in preparation and awaiting
submission for its Technical Specification Ballot.
- POSC Caesar, one of the industrial consortia supporting the development of
ISO 15926 has recently been seeking tenders for Reference Data Management
Software to act as a Register.
- Shell have decided to adopt ISO 15926 as the foundation for the next version of
their Downstream Data Model.
I know it often seems glacial, but there is actually movement.
Regards
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: <http://www.shell.com/>
<http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> James R Schoening
> Sent: 03 April 2005 16:10
> To: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: SUO WG Status
>
>
> All,
>
> As chair of this IEEE working group, I should probably say
> something.
>
> First, current discussions are fine for now, since we
> don't have
> any feedback on our documents to work on.
>
> Here is my view on the status of this working group.
>
> To develop a successful standard, certain ingredients
> are needed.
> I would list these as:
>
> a. Charter and organizational structure (We
> established
> that about 5 years ago)
>
> b. Members (We have quite a few), including technical
> editors with the time to work on the documents.
>
> c. Draft document(s) (We have about 6 documents at
> various stages of maturity)
>
> d. Actual use of the documents (This is what we need
> next.) This surfaces proposed changes, leads to improvements in the
> document, builds consensus in the working group, and can lead
> to market
> adoption.
>
> e. Consensus. In our case, it means both
> consensus on
> which document to select, and consensus on the details of
> that document.
> Market momentum may be needed for this.
>
> f. Market adoption.
>
> Regarding timing, IEEE uses artificial deadlines to
> spur working
> groups along, and also to dissolve those not making progress. But in
> reality, there is no deadline. The initial deadline is
> 4-years, which we
> faced last fall, and easily obtained a 2-year extension. If we are
> making good progress by the fall of 2006, we can get further
> extensions.
> But if not, the charter could be allowed to expire, but this
> discussion
> list would remain, and we could simply wait to see if any of
> the starter
> documents gain utilization or market adoption. If progress
> resumes, we
> request a new charter from IEEE.
>
> The bottom line, in my opinion, is we now need actual
> utilization
> (by a variety of users) of one or more of our starter documents (and
> feedback from them) to make further progress.
>
> All other opinions welcome.
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG
>
>