Re: Re: Standardising methodology. (was: Re: SUO: RE: SUO E-mailBallot -- Please Acknowledge receipt)
Yang,
I agree. All the input to SUMO has been cited on the SUO "Candidate
Content" page. More challenging is coming up to speed on logic
itself. Several folks have cited
Enderton, H.B., A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press, 1972
I've mentioned
J.Nolt, D.Rohatyn and A.Varzi, Logic, Shaum's Outlines, McGraw Hill, 1998
as well as
John F. Sowa, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and
Computational Foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, ©2000
Taken together, I think these references would be sufficient for anyone to
come up to speed on what this forum is doing. Of course, on any task a
certain level of background has to be assumed for people to participate and
not spend all their time recapitulating textbooks in the forum itself. I'm
not sure what the right level is here but I'd figure that some exposure to
logic such as what would be presented in an undergraduate course on AI,
Logical Philosophy, or Discrete Structures could reasonably be assumed.
Adam
At 10:24 AM 7/25/2001 -0400, Yang Yun wrote:
>The DAML BAA states:
>"If proposing a novel mathematical or formal approach, provide enough
>detail for a non-expert to evaluate the work, citing the relevant
>technical work needed for a deeper understanding."
>
>This forum even more so.
>yy
>
> >Certainly there are many standards which haven't had a defined
> >technical process for their creation, and many which also are not
> >standardizing something which has been done repeatedly. For
>example,
> >the DAML+OIL standard is doing something new, and the only process
> >I'm aware of that can be stated for its creation is the
> >administrative process of standardization, much the same as the IEEE
> >process.
>
> >Adam
>
>
>Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1
>metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571