SUO: Candidate additional standards - RE: Good News from IEEE on Free SUO
Jim,
. It seems to me it is too soon to decide on the language
issue. Naturally I believe a controlled language basis for SUO development
would be the best course because of the numbers of advantages I have
identified elsewhere. However many participants are taking quite a while to
appreciate numbers of aspects of what I am actually saying as opposed to
what they, at first glance, presume is implied by the suggestion.
. If the SUO goes down the highly symbolic KIF path, then, I
would suggest a version of controlled English version of the SUO, possibly
ACE or a derivative / extension of it, for one of the additional candidate
standards. Who knows, perhaps it would replace the SUO for most purposes
once people understand how it can simplify many business and other
activities, can encompass others not even options for a KIF based one, and
that it really is less obtusely off-putting to the ordinary population.
Graham Horn
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:59 AM
To: 'standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org'
Subject: SUO: Good News from IEEE on Free SUO
SUO Participants,
Patick Cassidy and I just finished a telecon with IEEE and received
general agreement that the full SUO document could be posted on the Internet
for free, with the understanding that any additional standards (e.g. APIs,
etc.) would be sold as normal. They explained that it is consistent with
their business model that the first or core standard for a group be free, as
a way of getting the group motivated and getting the market to adopt the
core standard.
All they asked us for was a brief work plan that describes the
additional candidate standards we envision developing. When listing these,
we can fudge our words as much as we'd like, so this is no commitment, just
an indication we are looking beyond just the SUO standard. The easiest
examples are the APIs we have discussed. I believe we agreed there would
need to be multiple APIs. Can anyone take a guess at what a couple of them
might be?
Patrick suggested to me a 'middle ontology' would be a likely
follow-on to SUO.
What other candidates can we think of?
I know this is a sensitive topic, but what about KIF? I think we'd
all love to see KIF advance through NCITS (where it is an open project), but
I see no movement there. I also don't see how it could be ballotted in
NCITS if only a small number of its stakeholders are NCTIS members. Would
KIF have a better chance in IEEE, with all the SUO participants? Its Chair
could be one of its current leaders. All contributors would be given
recognition in the standards document. I don't view this as a different
standards body finishing the standard, but rather the same body of people
(and more) just working under a different organization. Please don't
interpret this as a hijacking of KIF, but rather just an offer of an
alternative path.
Any other ideas? What about Conceptual Graphs? What about the
DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML), after DARPA is ready to transition it?
Please post your ideas and let's see which ones we can list. Once
again, if a candidate is not clear, we can simply say its a potential
project.
I said I would reply by the end of this week, so please post your
ideas by Thursday.
Jim Schoening