Re: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
Seth,
At 12:51 PM 8/31/2001 -0700, Seth Russell wrote:
>From: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>
> > Matthew,
> > I think Seth's question was somewhat different although he'll need to
> > confirm. He seemed to address changing one axiom in the standard to
> > another version that he preferred. You seem to be addressing selection of
> > one of two alternative theories that are both part of a standard.
>
>Yes. I don't really believe in a standard ontology (woops ... sorry for the
>heresy). But at the same time I want an ontology that I don't have to
>construct myself. I like to pick and choose. I believe that the most
>useful SUMO would have a front end tool where the ~user~ answers a set of
>questions and clicks on a set of contexts .. the tool would then generate
>the needed ontology. Then where certain axioms were still unacceptable, one
>could replace them individually ... the tool would then thread through the
>selected knowledge and delete any contradictions and suggest where new
>axioms were needed.
>
>... hey I don't want a lot .. do I ?
It's ok not to be a believer in SUO (or SUMO). Plenty of people don't
believe in RDF or DAML, but those that do worked (or are working) to create
a standard. I agree that even if one doesn't adopt all of the eventual SUO
just as other standards such as RDF can still have value to a developer who
doesn't see the advantages of using the standard but just wants to pick and
chose aspects of the standard for his particular application.
As for the tool to support that goal I wouldn't be interested in creating
it, but who knows, someone else might.
Adam
>Seth Russell
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571