Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: SUO Comment #3




> H. Sofia Pinto [sofia@gia.ist.utl.pt] voted to ABSTAIN, with the following
> comment:
> 
> "I'm not sure if the SUO should have as its explicit purpose that it must be
> 
> suitable for compilation to more restricted forms such as XML or database 
> schema. It is desirable that it is suitable for such compilation but is it
> "must 
> have" requirement? "
> 


I think this is actually an important requirement - one that will make
this ontology far more useful than it otherwise might.  There are
already lots of 'lightweight' onotlogies out there getting used a lot. 
The trouble is, they are ad hoc. I think that there should be a way to
project the SUO onto various more restricted forms, especially those
that are in the mainstream. Otherwise, the SUO may risk never having a
significant user population.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that this requirement actually affects
how we build the SUO. Intuitively, it seems that *any* SUO that we might 
build could be projected onto more restricted forms.  Although it may be 
more or less difficult to do so, depending on the SUO formalism.  I
submit for discussion the following question:

Is this requirement in fact vacuous, and will not affect how we build
the SUO?  
-- If not, then how might we build it differently to meet this
   requirement?
-- If so, then so, then it should not be stated as a requirement, but
   instead as an intended purpose or role of the SUO


> This comment references the following item in the Purpose:
> 
> *       The ontology will be suitable for "compilation" to more restricted
> forms such as XML or database schema. This will enable database developers
> to define new data elements in terms of a common ontology, and thereby gain
> some degree of interoperability with other compliant systems. 
> 
> Chair's note: If this remains as is, the first sentence above, "The ontology
> will be suitable for "compilation" to more restricted forms such as XML or
> database schema," should be moved to the Scope, but the rest  should remain
> in the Purpose.


I disagree. I do not see this as a scoping matter, it is a PURPOSE of
the SUO, to enable it to be used in other more mainstream representation
formalisms for inter-operability.  

Mike