Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: Re: Ballot Comment




Pat and others,

Thanks. An interesting comment. Since it was rather brief, I may be
mistaking its meaning. However, let me give it a shot (fools rush in ...).

The act of determining "which of the many available options to choose during
the construction of an upper ontology" would seem to involve an evaluation.
Now evaluation data is content of a normative kind. But it is still content,
and could be encoded in an object-level ontology describing evaluations --
what they are, who is authorized to make them, to what objects they should
be applied, and how to make the application. A descriptive ontology would
try to explain how things are, whereas a normative ontology would try to
tell us how things ought to be.

For example, there might exist a normative kind of ontology that describes
the evaluation of ontologies for different purposes, After all, ontologies
are objects too. The IFF approach would involve, amongst other things, an
ability to combine ontologies in many different ways. Then the "methodology
for determining which of the many available options to choose during the
construction of an upper ontology" might involved the suitable combination
of an evaluation ontology with the ontologies being evaluated.

What do you think?

Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
<James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 2:44 PM
Subject: SUO: Ballot Comment


>
> >
> >2. This message is to ballot the question, as proposed by Robert Kent:
> >
> >"Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group commence
> work
> >on the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0 [July 20, 2001] posted at
> >http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf, with the intent of developing it into
the
> >final SUO document?
>
>
> NO.
> Comment. The document is inappropriate as a foundation because it
> does not provide any clear methodology for determining which of the
> many available options to choose during the construction of an upper
> ontology. Also, in my (personal) view, it is much too mathematically
> oriented to be suitable as a useable upper ontological framework.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>