Re: SUO: Conformance
Frank,
If I understand this, it sounds like a sound approach. I'm
not familiar with the registry concept as such, and don't
know what I might be missing.
Best,
John V.
Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>@majordomo.ieee.org on 10/17/2001 12:22:04
PM
Please respond to Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
cc:
Subject: SUO: Conformance
At 10:28 2001-10-17 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> 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 and John Velman-
I agree with a good number of your points, including your impression that
the SUO work is mostly a "posh dictionary" (in standards terms: a registry
of axioms). This is why I've suggested two main discussion points: (1)
what does conformance mean?, and (2) what criteria should we use for
including items into SUO?
Rather than initially suggest a registry, I just provided the background
information on the "conformance" topic. In my experience, the discussion
of conformance is always a contentious topic (and we are having a lively
discussion in SUO). I can "live with" SUO being a registry. This leads to
my next point ...
Since my hunch was that SUO might be a registry, I had suggested several
times: we need to develop a criteria for what is included/excluded. From a
technical point of view (not a P&P perspective), there are two main
components to a registry: (1) the table of items, and (2) the criteria for
additions, deletions, and changes. We should still develop criteria.
This would be a good experiment: if we develop criteria and view the SUO
work as a registry, is this good enough?
> ...
> > -----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.
Agree. And the PAR is intentionally minimalist because we must do
everything that is mentioned in the Scope of the PAR. A common mistake in
IEEE PARs (but not other standards' project statements) is to overcommit on
the project: in the early stages, everyone is hopeful and their
perspectives are broad. However, later on as the standard is developed and
refined, the WG has a much clearer and precise perspecitve of what is
possible (to standardize) and what they want. In IEEE, they are
particularly firm about the PAR Scope matching the final product, so the
best advice is to be minimalist (rather than ambitious) in PAR Scope
wording.
The current PAR Scope wording wouldn't prevent us from understanding (and
standardizing) SUO in related usages (e.g., as described in the Purpose
wording) <-- it's all dependent upon what the SUO WG wants.
> > 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."
John-
Another excerpt in ISO/IEC Guide 2 might be helpful, too:
5 Types of standards
NOTE - The following terms and definitions are not in tended to
provide a systematic classification or comprehensive list of possible types
of standards. They indicate some common types only. These are not mutually
exclusive; for instance, a particular product standard may also be regarded
as a testing standard if it provides test methods for characteristics of
the product in question.
5.1 basic standard
standard that has a wide-ranging coverage or contains general
provisions for one particular field
NOTE - A basic standard may function as a standard for direct
application or as a basis for other standards.
5.2 terminology standard
standard that is concerned with terms, usually accompanied by their
definitions, and sometimes by explanatory notes, illustrations, examples,
etc.
So the SUO work might be some combination of a "basic standard" and a
"terminology standard".
Regarding the "implementation" (use) of SUO, the following ISO/IEC Guide 2
excerpts are relevant:
10 Implementation of normative documents
NOTE - A normative document can be said to be "implemented" in two
different ways. It may be applied in production, trade, etc., and it may be
taken over, wholly or in part, in another normative document. Through the
medium of this second document, it may then be applied, or it may again be
taken over in yet another normative document.
10.2 application of a normative document
use of a normative document in production, trade, etc.
10.2.1 direct application of an international standard
application of an international standard irrespective of the taking
over of that international standard in any other normative document
10.2.2 indirect application of an international standard
application of an international standard through the medium of
another normative document in which it has been taken over
So "implementation" can mean direct use (someone/something uses SUO
directly) or indirect use (someone/something uses another standard that
includes SUO as a normative reference, e.g., a domain-specific ontology
that uses SUO). A terminology standard may be "implemented" via
incorporation by normative reference.
(See my comments below marked with "[*]" for more discussion on
"conformance".)
> > 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.
As I said above, the PAR is minimalist ... if there were agreement on
particular types of usage (see my dicussion of "conformance paradigms" in
the 2001-10-03 E-mail titled "Some thoughts on conformance"), then we might
be including them in our standards wording, but we might have not had the
foresight to understand the right conformance paradigms when the PAR was
written <-- this is normal in the standards process.
My purposes for asking the questions on "conformance" and "criteria" were
to pin down (as you say) some of the important aspects of the standard that
we are developing.
> > 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.
From a standards perspective, your suggestion might be accomplished as a
multi-part standard. For example, 1600.1 is the registry, 1600.2 is the
registration authority process (i.e., criteria and change control P&P),
1600.3 is the "{Standard | Recommended Practice | Guideline} for Lower
Ontologies". A good reason for keeping them separate is that users might
what to refer to them separately, e.g., I might only need 1600.1, but not
need 1600.3 because I'm not developing a lower ontology.
> > 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."
A Side Note: While the conformance statement of IDEF0 might seem simple,
I'd guess that many smart people worked many many hours to "get it right".
> > 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.
[*]
If SUO is only a "terminology standard" (as per ISO/IEC Guide 2), then I
agree. If SUO is a "basic standard" (or "basic standard" combined with
other types), then conformity (conformance clause) should be developed.
I don't think it is fruitful (yet) to spend time trying to categorize the
SUO work in any of the ISO/IEC Guide 2 standards categories ... the
discussion will go on endlessly without conclusion. However, I do believe
it is productive to talk about "what conformance means" (and to develop a
"criteria" document). The "conformance" discussion is useful because we
are discussing how SUO will be used in the context of the standard. Once
we have a better understanding of what we mean by conformance, then the
category of the standard (basic, terminology, etc., combined) is likely to
be obvious.
Yes, this might appear to be "putting the cart before the horse", but this
problem solving technique gets us to solutions quicker (i.e., investigating
the concept of "conformance" early on speeds the standards development
process).
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure