SUO: Vote on SUMO
I vote "NO" .
Comments:
I think although SUMO is the result of a great effort and should be
appreciated, but there are some problems with it to be a base for a
standard:
I believe that such a standard should indicate
a) Methodologies to build upper level and build ontologies upon
this upper level
b) The structure or meta language to build ontologies
c) The content of upper level (which are a few primitive concepts)
SUMO lacks (a), is weak in (b), and is intemperate in (c).
In my opinion the structural ontology (first part) in SUMO is suitable
to be
a part of a base reference document for SUO. But the other parts contain
some
excess definitions which can be out of a standard upper level. Some of
them are domain dependent which can be added to an ontology
for some domain/applications and be deleted for others.
On the other hand, as the usage of ontologies is growing and the
knowledge
they should contain is huge, manual development of ontologies become
more
expensive. As a solution, we should move toward automatic building of
ontologies
instead of manual construction. So the standard should indicate the
essential (as minimal
as possible) primitives,both concepts (categories or classes) and
operators to
build an ontology.
Regards
Mehrnoush Shamsfard
Intelligent Systems Lab.,
Computer Engineering Dept.,
Amir kabir University of Technology
Tehran, Iran