SUO: RE: Resolution of Comment #1 "Target Number of terms"
This message from Mike Uschold bounced, so here it is again:
I still object with having a target number of terms, as I have argued
already. If a number of terms is to be mentioned at all (not necessarily a
bad
idea) then it should be a 'by-the-way' sort of remark and explicitly noted
as such. IMHO...
\
Mike
-------------------------------------
SUO,
It appears we do not have consensus to change the target size of SUO to
~300, as suggested in Comment #1(below) by Bill Burkett. Bill has stated
that while he is still uneasy about the
target size of 1000-2500, he is "...willing to go along with it given the
subsequent discussions about structuring, specialization, and organization
of concepts."
As such, unless anyone objects, we will stay with the original
target of 1000-2500.
Please also keep in mind that this is cited as an 'estimate.' If we
later find the best size is smaller or larger, we will not be bound by this
range.
Jim Schoening
------------------------------
SUO,
SUO Comment #1: Bill Burkett writes:
"I believe that the objective of 1000-2500 terms is far too large to
be practical. In my experience, I've found that the practical upper limit on
the number of independent object/entity types in a schema is ~300 types.
Models larger than this simply cannot be comprehensively understood by a
single person. (One may argue that it's possible to understand larger models
with the aid of a meta-level organizing structure - and I agree - but then
*this* structure becomes the upper level ontology.)" ( The full text of
this message is located at
http://ltsc.ieee.org/records/suo-votes-2000-07-26.htm#bill)
One reply already posted was from Adam Pease, who wrote:
"Folks in the HPKB project including Cycorp, Teknowledge and Stanford used
the Cyc upper model of 3000 terms successfully in several tests. I take this
as an existence proof that refutes your assertion, or more gently, maybe it
just refutes the need for an individual to comprehend the entirety of a
model for that model to be useful."
This comment is now open for discussion. Is 1000-2500 too large? If so,
what would be a better range to target?
Jim Schoening