Re: SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Murray,
The Open Group web site is unfortunately not entirely accurate. I will
ask them to correct it. We do have tools (a browser) as you know, but it
is not yet mature enough for general release, nor do we have an inference
engine for general release yet. However, those interested in inference
could use OTTER or PTTP without much enhancement on SUMO I suspect. Once
again, there is no proprietary content in SUMO, nor are any specific tools
required. There is no obligation to the Open Group. Our hope is that
members of the Open Group task force will use the QoS ontology and help
improve it as well as feeding back questions and requirements for
SUMO. The more domain specific ontology efforts that can be undertaken
using SUMO, the more relevant and correct we can ensure that SUMO is.
The relationship between our QoS ontology and SUMO is one of child to
parent. The QoS ontology uses terms and definitions from SUMO. In the
browser for the QoS ontology we've loaded them into the same knowledge base.
All the IJCAI workshop results, papers and presentations are posted on
the workshop web site at <http://projects.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01>.
I did not promise Frank a list of responses to all his points with my
ballot, but I do intend to include those items in a posting in the future.
Adam
At 06:26 AM 8/18/2001 -0400, Yang Yun wrote:
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571