Re: SUO: Ballot Comment
Adam,
You raise good questions, and I owe you an answer. Unfortunately,
I most likely won't have a chance to write one until Tuesday.
Best,
John V
Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>@majordomo.ieee.org on 07/27/2001
08:34:19 AM
Please respond to Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
To: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
<James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>,
"'standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org'"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: SUO: Ballot Comment
John,
We have a PAR that states what we're trying to achieve. We all agree
that having a methodology for achieving the goals of the PAR would be a
good thing. However, although you stated this more mildly than some
others, you seem to be saying that we should halt progress until we can
agree on a methodology, and yet, no one has yet provided a
methodology. I'm doubtful that we could agree on a methodology for
creating a large ontology since this is an effort largely without
precedent. It's hard enough getting agreement on concrete terms and
definitions.
You also raise a couple of other issues
1. Organization of the document which makes the ontological architecture
clear. Could you specify what sort of organization you'd like to see?
2. You mention a possibility of starting with just part of the
document. Which parts would you propose to include or exclude?
Adam
[prior messages snipped off...]