Re: SUO: single vs. multiple ontology standard
John,
See my note following quoted stuff -
John Sowa wrote:
>
>Pat,
>
>Perhaps that is a good reason for reconsidering the vote on SUMO.
>
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>JS>Bottom line: There is simply no reason to separate the two
>>>efforts, as Adam has suggested. The best approach is to
>>>combine them.
>
>PH> Well, there *is* a reason, though it is managerial rather than
>> technical. Adam is in control of the SUMO effort, this being done at
>> Teknowledge under his direct management; and Adam is quite unwilling
>> to either adopt any other methodology or to work in cooperation with
>> anyone who is using one. He is also, it seems, incapable of
>> understanding the issues that motivate those who are inclined towards
>> a modular approach, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence
>> in anyone who might be inclined to work with him. Taken together,
>> these seems to me to amount to an insurmountable barrier to a
>> combined effort, as indeed Adam has himself suggested.
>
>Since you and I both voted against making SUMO a candidate for an
>SUO standard, we seem to be disqualified from submitting a motion
>to reconsider the vote on SUMO.
>
>However, I voted in favor of IFF. Perhaps if somebody who voted
>in favor of SUMO as a candidate standard wanted to submit a motion
>to reconsider SUMO, I would be willing to submit a motion to
>reconsider IFF. Then we could jointly propose a new candidate
>project along the following lines:
>
> 1. Adopt the current SUMO ontology as a resource.
>
> 2. Adopt whatever Cycorp decides to contribute as a resource
> (provided that Cycorp releases it under a license that is
> appropriate to the bylaws of the IEEE procedures for standards).
>
> 3. Adopt IFF as a resource.
>
> 4. Modularize whatever is appropriate from #1 and #2 into a
> collection of starting modules and adopt whatever is
> appropriate from #3 as a basis for developing a methodology
> for organizing and combining modules along the lines that
> have been discussed on SUO list.
>
>John Sowa
I don't qualify, since I abstained on SUMO (and voted for IFF).
But,
As I understand the rules of the game, those of us who believe in
modularization could work on this plan without overturning anything. SUMO
as of the ballot edition is already a resource for SUO, as is IFF, as of
it's ballot edition.
This sounds like a good approach. What it needs is a leader and a little
(understatement!) planning. I think it could garner a group of workers.
--
A true story that may not be relevant, but is a parallel in some respects.
Stop reading now if you want.
Once many years ago I had the job of calculating a bunch of parameters
based on certain geographic location (relative to the Clarke ellipsoid
of 1866 -- it wasn't that long ago, but that was the earth model we used).
I filled a notebook with calculations using a Friden calculator and a book
of 8 place trig tables.
Just after I finished, the project moved the primary geographic reference
spot. So I swore I'd never calculate with a desk calculator again. I got a
Fortran II manual and wrote a massive program following exactly the same
steps I had used in the previous calculations. This turned out to be
impossible (for me) to get running and validated.
So, I modularized. I wrote lots of little programs (and their inverses,
which helped with the validation). This took less time and was successful.
Not only that, it was easy to add capabilities when other requirements
changed.
---
Best,
John V.