SUO: RE: Ballot Comment for review
Richard,
. Thanks for your contribution.
. You have raised a point I too have pondered - a fundamental
hole in our development concept.
. Like you, I see great value in the current effort
irregardless.
. Accordingly I reconfirm my vote, which was:
"I vote "YES" on the question of accepting the SUMO as a candidate for
development into the final SUO document, with the understanding that any
other candidates will have equal status with the SUMO, if it is adopted as a
candidate".
. I feel this is a positive approach in an area that is
evidently still quite experimental.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2001 7:13
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Ballot Comment for review
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Martin [mailto:richardm@tinwisle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:37 AM
To: James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
Subject: SUMO vote
Jim,
Reluctantly I vote NO to the following motion - "Should the IEEE P1600.1
Standard Upper Ontology Working Group commence work on the Suggested
Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15 [June 22, 2001] posted at
http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt <http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt> , with the
intent of developing it into the final SUO document?
I have two primary concerns. The first is emerging in the tally of votes
between academics and non-academics where the notion of "upper" appears
to be different. I understand and fully agree with the need for the
kind of ontology standard being pursued by the SUMO effort. Having
available a standard of reference for such a range of terms with
explicit relationships is a creditable objective. However, it does not
meet my desire for an upper ontology standard. It is a great beginning
to an ontology standard although just how it can be put to use in
constructing an ontology for applications is still unresolved.
And that need for resolution leads me to my second concern. The
methodology for constructing and using an ontology is a critical element
in the creation of an upper ontology standard. I will go so far as to
claim that it is the very essence of an appropriate upper ontology.
Without a methodological component I am left with a monolithic standard
of reference to address very dynamic uses of the standard and no
established means to do so. In addition, that means must be able to
support an enormous range of contexts for which conflicting use of terms
is unavoidable and where the explicit and implicit modification of
supporting axioms occurs frequently.
I want to repeat the reluctance of my NO vote. I find great value in
the SUMO effort but I can not support it as the basis for a "final SUO
document" at this time. I am concerned that a rejection of SUMO as a
final candidate will be seen as a rejection of the effort already
expended and result in those members of the SUO effort moving on to what
they might consider more productive tasks. That result would be
unfortunate.
Cheers,
Richard A. Martin