Re: SUO: Ballot response on SUMO
Frank,
Thanks for your support and the helpful and specific advice. I'll work
on a document that addresses your comments 2-8.
Adam
At 03:17 PM 8/14/2001 -0400, Frank Farance wrote:
>Regarding the ballot question:
>
> "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, with the intent of
>developing it into the final SUO document?
>
>I vote YES with comments (see below).
>
>Frank Farance
>
>----------------------
>Comment #1:
>
>Regardless of the suggestions/comments below, I believe the SUMO work is a
>good starting point for the SUO work. Based on my experience in other
>standards projects, the proposed "merge.txt" document is what I would
>expect for a starter document.
>
>I still need to study the IFF work, but right now I don't see anything
>that would prevent the SUMO and IFF work being harmonized and/or merged.
>
>I expect that other documents will be added to the SUO standard as it is
>developed.
>
>----------------------
>Comment #2:
>
>The document should be reformatted in the style of an IEEE standard. Once
>the document is in this form, it will make it easier to read and easier to
>make progress on the SUO work. In particular, the document should have
>several standard clauses: Clause 1, Scope/Purpose; Clause 2, Normative
>References; Clause 3, Definitions; Clause 4, Conformance. Probably the
>remaining Clauses would be organized along the major sections of the document.
>
>----------------------
>Comment #3:
>
>The document should define or reference the notation it is using.
>
>----------------------
>Comment #4:
>
>The document should be written so that assertions are clearly identified
>(e.g., "shall" wording).
>
>----------------------
>Comment #5:
>
>The document should clarify what is meant by "conformance", i.e., how do I
>know whether or not a system conforms to the requirements of the
>specification (standard)?
>
>----------------------
>Comment #6:
>
>An annex should be developed that describes the criteria for choosing to
>include/exclude an element within this document. For example, why choose
>to include both hertz and megahertz (or nanosecond and picosecond)? Maybe
>we should only have one (e.g., hertz and second). Likewise, given all the
>general items one could add to the SUMO, I don't understand the rationale
>for including such specialized items, such as "toxic organism" and
>"buying/selling transactions"
>
>----------------------
>Comment #7:
>
>An annex should be developed that demonstrates a sample, illustrative
>application of the standard.
>
>----------------------
>Comment #8:
>
>A rationale should be developed that explains the reasoning behind the
>Clauses, structure, etc., of the document.
>
>----------------------
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
>mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
>Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571