SUO: RE: SUO Comment #3
Dear Bill,
I don't think it is as bad as you make out.
As far as I can see, conformance to the SUO means using the terms of the SUO
with the meaning of the formal definition defined by the SUO in the SUO
language.
So there is no problem if someone does just strip out the terms and use
them, provided the use conforms to the formal definition (if it didn't it
would be non compliant, and that is something you could check against the
formal definition, albeit that not being available directly).
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Asset Information Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Andersen [mailto:andersen@ontologyworks.com]
> Sent: 15 August 2000 17:11
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK
> Cc: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SUO Comment #3
>
>
> "West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK" wrote:
> >
> > Dear James,
> >
> > The point to be careful of in the comment below is not to
> interpret the
> > requirement as meaning that the SUO should not contain
> anything that cannot
> > be "compiled" into a more restrictive format such as XML.
> Otherwise there is
> > no problem.
>
> Matt makes a good point, but there is another point lurking here. In
> order for the statement "compiled into X" (X /= SUO language) to be
> meaningful, we have to define what "compiled" means. For example, it
> is trivial to simply strip out the type-like constants out of the SUO
> ontology and embed them in RDF, or XML-schema, or RDF-schema, or
> whatever. However, you'll lose semantics in the process. So you have
> three choices: 1) characterize just what kinds of loss occur
> and whether
> or not you can live with them; 2) make sure the target language is
> as expressive as the SUO standard; or 3) drop the requirement and face
> the possibility that nobody will use the SUO.
>
> Now, (2) isn't going to happen with any of the RDF-y/XML-y standards
> likely to gain popular acceptance in the near future, and I
> assume that
> nobody wants (3) because otherwise we'd be wasting our time. That
> leaves (1) - a monumentally hard job. Comments?
>
> ...bill
>