SUO: RE: IFF Comments Requested
Dear Jim,
18th October is very near, especially since I estimate it
would take me several days just to read the material on
IFF, never mind make comments.
My main concerns about IFF is accessibility. The language
used is sometimes somewhat technical, and is used without
prior explanation.
One example I can give from memory is about "large" and
"small" sets. I suspect that "large" means "infinite
membership". But without some explanation or definition
there is no reason for me not to assume that "has more
than 100 members" is not a "large" set.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Farrugia [mailto:jim@spatial.maine.edu]
> Sent: 04 October 2001 19:46
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: Jim Farrugia
> Subject: SUO: IFF Comments Requested
>
>
> ATTN SUO WG,
>
> It is now time for active SUO members to do a thorough review of
> IFF. The vote on IFF was only to decide whether to commence
> work on it,
> not to decide what changes or improvements to make. But we are now
> requesting that members review the IFF and submit suggested changes.
>
> The IFF now lives in extended form at http://suo.ieee.org/IFF.
> It consists of four pieces: an Introduction, a Core subOntology,
> a Category Theory subOntology, and a Classification subOntology.
>
> We have also posted a "changes.htm" file
> (http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/changes.htm)
> that describes the differences between the starter document and the
> extended version that now exists. (Essentially, some
> sections that were
> only sketched out in the starter document are now more fully
> fleshed out
> into separate pieces. The exception is that the model theory
> section of
> the starter document has not yet been made into its own
> separate document.)
>
> Please submit your comments by October 18, 2001, replying to this
> subject line ("IFF Comments Requested"), so that we can
> easily gather all
> comments. (At some point later, we may suggest other subject lines to
> group together related comments.)
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Jim Farrugia
> Robert Kent
> Leo Obrst
>
>
>