SUO: Registries (was conformnace)
At 11:20 2001-10-18 -0700, Seth Russell wrote:
> From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
>
> > > 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).
> >
> > MW: If others agree with this too, that would be significant.
>
> For what it's worth (I'm not a voting member) I agree with this too. Except
> what does 'posh' mean in this context ?
I think we were having a little fun. :-)
I think "posh" probably means that there are some more things that would be in the registry than just the axioms. For example, if the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registries were used to describe this kind of registry, we could make use of things like identifiers (makes the axioms easier to reference), classifications (might address John Sowa's modularity issues), relations (associations among elements), administrative information (e.g., "unapproved", "provisional", "standard", etc.).
I'm at the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 (Metadata) meetings the next week, so I'll get some feedback on this kind of repository technique with respect to SUO. FYI, the ISO/IEC 11179 standards don't tell you how to populate the registry ... that is up to SUO to determine.
> Modules could be uploaded and registered along with KIF axioms stating their
> dependencies to other modules. Then we could add some kind of trust
> annotation system for members. Also automated agents could be employed to
> search for inconsistencies and publish those as well. Then SUO would become
> more of a continual process, rather than this show stopper kind of
> parliamentary procedure.
Yes, the 11179 registries support these kind of dependencies and "trust" features.
A registration authority is a continual process.
It is unlikely that parliamentary procedure would be elimintated by the use of a registry. The main features of a registry are: incremental approval of items. (<-- This assumes that the standard
> SWAG had similar aspirations (see URL below). If SUO doesn't want to adopt
> this approach, perhaps we could revitalize SWAG to achieve those same goals.
I'll take a look.
-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