RE: SUO: Re: Conformance
Dear John,
Well I think I am with you. In this discussion I have
been taking the position that the SUO is essentially a
posh dictionary, and that the only sensible conformance
statement you can make is of using the terms in it with
the meaning given in the "dictionary", rather than some
other meaning.
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: John.Velman@HSC.com [mailto:John.Velman@HSC.com]
> Sent: 16 October 2001 20:27
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Conformance
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I haven't been able to keep up with all the correspondence on
> conformance,
> so if these remarks parallel someone else's please accept my apology.
> Except for a note from Frank (IIRC) mentioning that the
> conformance had to
> do with an implementation of the standard, not with the
> standard itself,
> I've seen nothing that pins down just what is being discussed
> (although
> much of the discussion has been interesting, nevertheless).
>
> <rant>
>
> Referring to the PAR, the scope states that this standard
> will "specify an
> upper ontology..." It goes on to say that an "ontology is
> similar to a
> dictionary or glossary, but with greater detail and
> structure..." The scope
> does not delineate any other application or implementation that the
> standard applies to.
>
> The scope of the PAR sounds much like the scope for a
> terminology standard.
> What is the implementation of a dictionary---the dictionary itself?
>
> While the parallel isn't exact, it seems to me that it is
> pretty close. As
> an example, ISO1087 Terminology---Vocabulary, is a standard that
> "establishes a basic vocabulary for terminology science and
> its practical
> applications." ISO1087 has no conformance clause. It has a scoping
> statement that it is applicable to terminological activities.
>
> The Purpose clause of the PAR does state that "Applications based on
> domain-specific ontologies that are compliant with this
> standard will be
> able to interoperate (to some degree) by virtue of the shared
> common terms
> and definitions." Compliance and conformance are often used
> as synonyms,
> more or less, so this seems to imply that we are thinking
> about a standard
> that will specify requirements on domain-specific ontologies.
>
> Seems to me that this is not well stated, and I'm sorry I
> missed it at the
> time. It seems to me that the meaning of this statement
> could have better
> been expressed by: "Applications based on domain-specific
> ontologies that
> use terms and definitions from this standard will be able to
> achieve some
> degree of interoperability."
>
> Perhaps I'm befuddled by this partly because I have been
> dwelling in a part
> of the standards world where conformity means strictly (ISO
> IEC Guide 2,
> Clause 12.1) "fulfillment by a product, process or service of
> specified
> requirements."
>
> Putting the horse on the other end of the cart, if we really
> want to have
> conformance, we need a provision in the scope of the standard
> specifying
> the particular products, services, or processes that are
> intended to be
> covered ---secondary ontologies, applications using
> ontologies?---and a
> clause specifying the requirements on them.
>
> The discussion has been about conformance of other ontologies
> to the SUO.
> This still strikes me as a strange concept. However, to
> accomplish this,
> perhaps the title of the standard should be: "Standard Upper
> Ontology and
> Requirements for Lower Ontologies." Assuming we eventually
> use a modular
> form (which John Sowa and others recommend, and I endorse),
> this framework
> could become very interesting.
>
> Stylistically the right way to do this will be for the Scope
> to delineate
> the products, services, or processes covered, followed by a
> clause stating
> the requirements on them. The conformance statement might
> then be like
> that in the scope of IEEE1320.1 (IDEF0) which says "A model or diagram
> conforms to this standard if it adheres to all mandatory
> provisions (marked
> by the verbs 'shall' or 'is') of this standard."
>
> This strikes me as a more complicated and somewhat different
> job than just
> creating the upper ontology itself, which seems hard enough.
>
> On the other hand, it would be useful to have a clause---possibly an
> informative annex, rather than a normative clause---describing how the
> Upper Ontology can be used in support of a domain specific ontology.
>
> </rant>
>
> Best,
>
> John Velman
>