Re: SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
I second the motion to reconsider the SUMO motion.
The reason is because a few days ago Adam Pease introduced
the QoS ontology as being derived from SUMO, which speaks
to the question of a monolithic ot lattice of ontologies.
What exactly is the relation between these 2 sibling ontologies?
> 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.
Secondly the following claim made at opengroup.org/qos about SUMO
are a lot stronger than the claims made on the SUO list about it:
http://www.opengroup.org/qos/conference/q301/writeup.htm
>Discussed the IEEE¡¯s Proposed Upper Ontology Standard and the
>proposal from Lou Coker of Teknowledge for the QoS Taskforce to take
>on the QoS Ontology Domain for that Standard. Teknowledge has
>already developed an inference engine and tool kit for the Upper
>Ontology that is publicly available from their web site. People were
>very excited about refining this approach and initiating the
>standards work for the QoS domain.
This speaks to the question of the basis of the ontology development
in domain requirements, mechanisms of refinement and abstraction
to move up and down the lattice/set/structure of ontologies.
The availability of an inference engine and tool kit for the
Upper Ontology speaks to question of the Total Cost of ownership/
added proprietary content implied by the adopting SUMO (as with Cyc).
Does voting SUMO into working document status imply any
obligation to the open group? Is there any feedback mechanism
from the opengroup to assist the work on the working document?
Also, a summary of the results of the IJCAI01 SUO workshop
would be beneficial to coming to an informed vote on SUMO.
Lastly, Adam Pease promised Frank Farance and itemised reply
to his 12 or so questions - included with his ballot reply -
and it would help to have these replies before the final
votes are settled.
Murray Bent
yangyun@ieee.org
-----A-d-v-e-r-t-i-s-e-m-e-n-t-s---B-e-l-o-w--------------
Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1 metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com