SUO: What Language to Use
SUO Group,
We appear to have different opinions as to what type of language to use
to express the SUO content.
I suggest the best way to resolve this is through proposed content, not
debate or a vote at this time. As content is proposed, it should be
expressed in a proposed language. Content proposed in one language could be
translated and resubmitted in another. This will demonstrate the maturity
and features of each language. We might find middle ground or a composite
solution, but at the least we will see which language builds consensus.
Comment #12 (below) did achieve consensus that we would use a 'formal
language,' but this should not prevent anyone from proposing content in any
desired form.
At some point, we will hopefully have enough proposed content to take a
vote on what is loosely called a 'Base Document.' Such a document could
come from a group effort or proposed by one participant. The purpose of a
Base Document vote is to determine whether the group wants to focus work on
a given document. For example, if a member proposed a traditional glossary
as a base document, we might disapprove it because it doesn't come close to
our goal of an upper ontology. A group can agree to focus on more than one
base document.
Relating to this issue of language, a base document could be voted up or
down based on the language it is expressed in. This would be a meaningful
vote, but to vote now would simply lock out alternatives that might have
value.
As I have stated many times, standards have the greatest chance of success
if based on mature and practiced technology (called 'existing practice')
rather than research concepts. There is certainly some room for emerging
technology in standards, but it will need to have matured before the
standard can succeed. The risk is in drawing on too much unproven
technology. Let's keep this in mind as we select a language.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Sent: 9/14/00 8:54 PM
Subject: SUO: RE: Comment #12 - 'Syntax for SUO' -- Proposed Resolution
All,
We appear to have consensus that SUO should be specified in a
'formal language,' so I propose we simply use those words and drop the
word
'syntax.'
Any objections?
I still need to work this into the overall Scope.
Jim Schoening