Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Adam,
As I said many times, I don't believe that a single monolithic
ontology is appropriate. Cyc started with one big theory, and
later realized that they had to subdivide it into microtheories.
SUMO will have to be subdivided eventually, and it is better to
start work on that now rather than later.
Some comments:
AP> The point of creating SUMO and putting it to a vote is exactly
> to have our SUO "committee" critique an existing design rather than
> start with a blank sheet of paper.
We've been doing that all along, since it was on the table as a working
document. I voted for it as a working document, but I don't believe
that it is going in the right direction to be a standard. As I said
at the IJCAI workshop, I would rather see it combined with IFF and
carved up into modules than to be presented as a single lump.
> Some folks (including you I think, at a different time) have
> suggested that we start with a blank sheet of paper and look at
> "fundamental ontological distinctions".
Yes, and I still think that is an important part of the puzzle.
The fact that SUMO has not been developed along those lines is one
reason why I'm not happy about the way it's going.
> Your sentence about harsh criticism is particular apt in
> our current case.
I said that the way SUMO is going is not the way I would recommend.
But I have suggested an alternative, which is to combine it with the
IFF approach.
> As for implementation and testing I think as I've mentioned in a
> previous reply to you that we're fairly far along. Not only do we have
> SUMO "implemented" in a browser, but it's also being used in an Open Group
> effort to develop an open source ontology for representing "Quality of
> Service". People are already downloading that ontology.
That's fine. But a browser is just an automated white paper -- it
doesn't do anything, such as check for consistency, make deductions,
facilitate interoperability, etc. It's nice that people are starting
to use it, but a lot more people have been using Cyc, and I wouldn't
vote for Cyc as a candidate for a standard.
John