RE: SUO: Conformance
Matthew,
Thanks for the explanation.
Sounds interesting.
John V.
"West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com> on 10/18/2001
10:16:42 AM
To: John.Velman@HSC.com, Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>
cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: SUO: Conformance
Dear John,
A Registry (at least in ISO terms) is an electronic standard
with a formal structure, i.e. a database.
For the SUO I can think of two ways it might look:
1. Simple data model with records for terms and axioms where
the axioms were written in KIF as text strings. Meta data could
be part of each record, e.g. date created, status, module it
is part of.
2. An implementation of the meta-model of KIF so that KIF
statements could be held as data in a database (the KIF could
be written out as a report).
The latter is more powerful.
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: 17 October 2001 20:44
> To: Frank Farance
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>
>
>