RE: SUO: RE: Re: Re: Conformance (actually, "standards profiles")
Dear Adam,
I agree this is what you proposed, but I think it
stretches conformance too far, and so I disagree
with this part of your proposal. You could for
example argue about whether something conformed
or not. At this point there is no point to
talking about conformance.
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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 15:23
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; 'Seth Russell'; Frank Farance;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: SWAG
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Re: Re: Conformance (actually, "standards
> profiles")
>
>
> Matthew,
> One minor correction is that the conformance clause that I
> proposed
> (with subsequent discussion on this list), does have
> something to say about
> the terms that one makes up. It requires that those terms be
> 'defined' (in
> a layman's sense, not the strict logical sense because many
> 'definitions'
> will be necessary but not sufficient) using terms from the
> standard. If
> the terms one makes up are redundant with existing terms that
> simply have a
> different name, I think that would be non-conforming as well,
> although I
> now realize that my proposed conformance clause doesn't specifically
> address that.
>
> Adam
>
> - Implementations of SUO are "ontologies" or "information models".
> - A conforming implementation is an ontology or
> information model that:
> [#1] Uses terms as defined by the SUO, or
> [#2] Uses terms that are defined (using SUO-KIF)
> entirely by other
> terms in the SUO
> [#3] Is consistent: a contradiction cannot be derived by means
> of first-order logic from the set of statements belonging to the
> implementation and the SUO.
>
>
> At 04:00 PM 10/23/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> >Dear Seth,
> >
> > >
> > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> > >
> > > > > Yes I think think standards profiles would work and might be
> > > > > quite eligant.
> > > > > Are these profiles chosen by the user, or prescribed by the
> > > > > standards body?
> > > > > I prefer the former. But I really should recuse myself
> > > from further
> > > > > discussion of standards as I don't even believe in
> > > creating a standard
> > > > > ontology. I just want a dictionary in which to look up terms
> > > > > such that
> > > > > others will understand what I am trying to say.
> > > >
> > > > MW: But that is what a standard is ... something that is
> > > used by a lot
> > > > of people.
> > >
> > > Ok, I agree. Then the meaning of conformance is that you are
> > > speaking using
> > > only the dictionary definition of the words. But then can
> > > you make up your
> > > own words? ... because those made up words would not be in
> > > the dictionary
> > > and hence not in conformance?
> >
> >MW: It is more neutral than that. The only thing that definitely
> >does not conform is using the terms in the dictionary with a
> >different meaning. Conformance has nothing to say about the terms
> >you make up.
> > >
> > > Seth Russell
> > >
> > >
> >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
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>