Re: Overview of Ontologies
Bob,
I agree with you that the quality of the KIF definition does not depend
on its status as a de jure "standard". I'm recommending it as the language
for the SUO effort simply because it's a good product.
Frank feels strongly about the value of standards and I wonder if his
desires could be met too. I believe that the charter of the SUO is to
focus on ontology content rather than the initial language of its
specification. However, there certainly would be value in having even more
official status for the language on which the SUO may be based. I'd
suggest that members of this list encourage and assist in driving KIF
towards ANSI standardization as a separate effort from SUO and on a
separate mailing list.
Is the KIF mailing list still active? Is there still an effort to seek
more formal status for it?
Adam
At 10:30 PM 6/21/2000 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
>Frank,
>I played no part in the development of KIF (or CG or CYC or FOPC) but I
>wish to state that the "status" of these notations is not dependent on
>whether or not the notation(s) is a draft proposed American National
>Standard (dpANS). People use them because they find them well constructed
>and suitable for their purpose.
>
>I find it offensive to suggest (as you do) that the author deviously
>titled it a dpANS to "boost " its "status". It is also unattractive to
>comment on one's behavior without copying them yourself.
>
>Bob
>
>Frank Farance wrote:
>
> > At 12:43 2000-06-21 -0700, David Whitten wrote:
> > >
> > > I looked at http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html for KIF information.
> > > Knowledge Interchange Format (from its draft proposed American National
> > > Standard) talks about the type or class of syntactic entities,
> > > such as terms, sentences, lexemes.
> >
> > I really wish the KIF authors would stop referring to their document as
> a draft proposed American National Standard. It was merely a working
> paper with no official status. They have titled it as such only to
> "boost" its status. Please convey to the authors that they should refer
> to it only as a working paper and that the document has no official status.
> >
> > -FF
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
> > mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
> > Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure
>
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571