Re: SUO: Re: Registers
This process sounds fine to me. In fact, it's consistent with what were
already doing. I have only two caveats
1. We haven't yet found a compelling case for alternate axiomatizions (not
that alternate axiomatizations aren't possible, just that they haven't been
necessary to support any other component of the ontology).
2. We should clarify the use of the word 'primitive'. My understanding is
that since few terms in SUO have necessary and sufficient definitions,
that, formally, they are primitive. On the other hand, all terms in the
SUMO other than Entity make use of other SUMO terms in their 'definitions'
(again with the clarification that those definitions are necessary, not
necessary and sufficient).
At 06:49 PM 10/24/2001 -0500, Pierre Grenon wrote:
>I could not help giving it a shot, for all it's worth see in line.
>Adam Pease wrote:
> > Matthew,
> > Thanks for clarifying. However, if we have trouble agreeing on this
> > list when a particular term or definition belongs in the standard, why
> > would you think that we could devise a precise methodology for doing
> > so? More to the point, for you or anyone who believes that such a
> > methodology is possible, can you propose one that addresses the scope and
> > purpose of the SUO?
> > Adam
>What about this?
>Start from whatever you have (SUMO, IFF). That becomes your 'reference
>data librairy', right?
>Bring in some term candidate to addition / system candidate to
>merge/extension and apply some combination of the criteria discussed
>-For addition of a term: Is the candidate term an SUO term? (or more
>interestingly: is the candidate term a redo of an SUO term?) Is the term
>defined solely in terms of SUO terms? Does the introduction generate a
>-For merging into / extending the SUO:
>Check wether the candidate uses SUO terms, derived SUO terms. Would
>fusion / merging generate inconsistencies? redundancy? [So far, any new
>material may be said to carve out further the meaning of SUO terms.]
>If addition / fusion appeared to lead to inconsistency, consider
>enriching the SUO with an alternative axiomatization (module).
>If there are parts of the system not fitting into this first picture,
>then consider extending the SUO by adding new primitive terms to the SUO
>I don't see how the criteria for addition will differ from that used in
>agreeing on the 'reference data librairy', that is, a consensus among a
>community that a term is useful, handy, correspond to a fundamental
>intuition active in a given community of users and that the proposed
>axiomatization of the term is adequat. Could there be aesthetic
>criteria? Should there be a principal of economy (against redundancy,
>against introduction as primitive terms of some that could be defined in
>terms of primitive SUO terms, etc.)? For a standard ontology, that
>presume awarness of potential candidates needs and interest, doesn't it?
>Is that too naive or maybe too general?
> > At 11:11 PM 10/24/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > >Dear Adam,
> > >
> > >The content of a register is standardised by having a standard
> > >method used for how content is added to the register. There is
> > >also an initial content (say the SUO).
> > >
> > >ISO15926 has the following parts:
> > > Part 1 - Overview
> > > Part 2 - Data Model (part of the ontology and the data
> > > structure for the register)
> > > Part 4 - Initial content of the register (we call it a Reference
> > > Data Library)
> > > Part 5 - Administrative Standard for the Register
> > > Part 6 - Technical Standard for the Register Content
> > >See: http://www.iso15926.freeserve.co.uk/register/index.html
> > >
> > >The TEchnical Standard provides the methodology for adding new
> > >content to the register. By following this process, the content
> > >is deemed to be standardised.
> > >
> > >You may recall that I have been suggesting that a defined methodology
> > >for how we develop the SUO would have value.
> > >
> > >
> > >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: email@example.com
> > >Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > >
(650) 424-0500 x571