RE: onto-std@ksl.stanford.edu
John,
These are good, tough questions:
> But who is going to pay for it. If it's going to be done by
volunteers, who is going to coordinate the volunteers, and how do you ensure
consistency, reliability, etc.?
Perhaps we can follow the model of the open-source software development
community, which has been able to successfully address such challenges in
many cases, for different kinds of software and software frameworks.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:02 PM
To: phil.jackson@COMPUTER.ORG
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: onto-std@ksl.stanford.edu
Phil,
I agree that would be a useful thing to do:
> Rather than seek to develop a "standard", perhaps the focus > should be
on developing "common", useful ontology kernels / > frameworks....
But who is going to pay for it. If it's going to be done by volunteers, who
is going to coordinate the volunteers, and how do you ensure consistency,
reliability, etc.?
As for systems that people have paid money to build, Cyc is the premier
example. But after 23 years of development, it still does not generate
enough money to keep itself in business without a major influx of research
grants.
Over the years of SUO efforts, we went round and round on these funding
issues without getting answers that had money attached.
John