SUO: Please rephrase IJCAI01 paper
Once again, I have the impression that SUMO is being
cast in a public forum as having some status with IEEE
http://reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/
I'd like references to "SUO (proposal)" changed to
SUO Proposal.
The paper "Origins of the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology"
talks about Teknowledge's strategy and tactics in
arriving at SUMO, not anything more.
I find it embarrassing that the term SUO is used in ways
not agreed to by the majority. Perhaps we should have a
Secretary to approve any official use of the SUO name.
The Secretary could then respond to criticisms of the
SUO effort in a principled way. For example, the KIF axioms
have been found to be inconsistent and there should be a
swift response by the group to clear up this embarrassing
revelation, change the axioms, put in place better quality
control, and respond to the researchers who rely on KIF.
I doubt that email is a sufficient medium to take account
of the many change requests generated by the group. Often
a dismissive attitude is taken in an email reply, eg
by turning the form of the question from a "why?" to a
"why not?" and the like. We need to have a technical solution,
not a shouting contest.
I do agree with the statement in the IJCAI01 paper that
"to date no group has taken full advantage of the vast
body of work in this area (of large ontologies)".
I agree with the observation that the SUO group has a
poor division of labor. There are many expertises here,
and the information flow specific to each should be taken
seriously.
yy
-----A-d-v-e-r-t-i-s-e-m-e-n-t-s---B-e-l-o-w--------------
Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1 metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com