SUO: Response to generic questions: IFF (resend)
To facilitate discussion of Robert Kent's proposal, I resend his responses
to a short questionnaire so that they appear after the formal motion and
second. The aim of these questions is to give active participants,
including those in non-profit organizations, sufficient information on
which to make an informed commitment of limited time and resources.
Questions are indented after > marks and letter labels a through g, Kent's
responses follow unindented:
> a) do you object to calling the final document that may evolve from your
> submission a reference ontology or a reference object?
No.
> b) would you state clearly those conceptual and methodological features of
> the proposed document which are so fundamental to it as not to be open to
> amendment?
The fact that it is founded on category theory.
The fact that the IFF Foundation Ontology represents the metalevel.
The large/small distinction in the metalevel.
The separation of the object level from the metalevel.
> c) what prior work has gone into the candidate ontology?
I have been doing research for the last 3 years on this.
Of course, it is based on category theory, the theory of information flow,
and formal concept analysis; all of which have large amounts of research
done in the past by various people.
> d) please estimate what further work is needed to bring it to a fully
> developed reference object (or "standard");
There are several namespaces in the upper metalevel that need to be
populated.
The IFF Model Theory subOntology in the lower metalevel still need work.
> e) what future resources are available for the candidate ontology in the
> form of contracts, budgets or grants directly supporting its development
> and including the names of participants in SUO working under such support;
None, as of now.
> f) do these future resources include the human resource of at least one
> person who has agreed to serve as technical editor;
I have agreed to serve as technical editor.
> g) please disclose any proprietary encumbrances on your document: e.g.
> proprietary algorithms, axioms, methods, processes or microtheories
> essential to the effective use of the envisaged final work product.
This work (done by myself) is being offered free to the SUO community.
END