SUO: Re: Inquiry Driven Ontology Development
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
I consider my participation in the SUO Working Group to be
a public, a professional, and, indeed, a sacred trust, and
I believe that my contributions and comments are currently,
in the main, exhibiting my dedication and my faithfulness
to that trust.
I have stated my aims and my rationale in another note, in part repeated here:
| Here are my present concerns:
|
| 1. Aim. I would like to see this group come up with a widely
| respected and internationally supported ontology standard.
|
| I think that I share this aim with most folks in the group.
|
| 2. There is a wide diversity of opinion about the form of
| deliverable that would mark the success of such an aim.
|
| I personally think that the end result will have to look more like
| an "ontology framework" or a parametrized family of ontologies than
| a single, monolithic, one-size-fits-all ontology (1st order theory).
| I think that a respectable percentage of this group shares this view.
|
| 3. There is a wide diversity of opinion about what it would
| take to achieve any such aim or any such a deliverable.
|
| I do not think that I am alone in believing that a successful outcome
| will take 3 to 8 years of concentrated work from where we are now,
| and that is contingent on attracting to this effort many more
| different sorts of expertise than is usually the case for more
| specialized standards. Short of some funding miracle, that
| would take either (a) unusually public-spirited individuals
| or (b) some other sort of more imaginative incentive than
| the pure drudgery of committee work normally provides.
|
| Remainder of my remarks available here:
|
| http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07008.html
I understand that there are differences of opinion about what the charter
of this mission really implies in practical terms, with regard to the ways
and means that will be needed for success, and with respect to the breadth
and duration of the effort that it will take to succeed. I believe that
all of these issues are worth discussing, indeed, that it is critical to
success to discuss them broadly, openly, and in detail. I have reasons
for thinking that the way I am proceeding is necessary for the ultimate,
or even the moderate success of the mission. I am prepared to argue these
reasons, and to modify them as need be if I discover that it is necessary
to do so. I think that the relevance of contributions and the suitability
of methods to our particular purpose is an extremely important issue. But
I do not see how a rational resolution of these issues can come about except
through their public expression and their critical discussion. No brand of
automatic, unreasoned, or unquestioned judgment of relevance or suitability
is going to do the job.
Jon Awbrey
P.S. With respect to "Focus & Volume", there were 12 notes posted to
the SUO Main Line yesterday: 1 on "Use of 2-D Representations",
3 substantive but short notes that I posted on the relevance of
inquiry and abductive reasoning to ontology development, arising
from a long-term view that I have maintained on what we will need
to achieve an ontology standard, and continuing a related line of
discussion that was incited by several of John Sowa's submissions:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signtalk.htm
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm
These 4 notes were the only "substantive" contributions yesterday.
The other 8 were on "Questions of Copyright" or other admin stuff,
including one response of mine to an off-list note of yours.
However distracting and extraneous they frequently become,
I do understand the need for these peripheral discussions,
Indeed, they are becoming increasingly educational for me,
and education, formal or informal, is, after all,
a significant part of our mission here.
J.A.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> We should keep to the charter and mission of this group,
> which is to develop a standard ontology. There's lots
> that could fall under this, but general ontology disucssions,
> if they don't directly relate to something we are working on,
> should not be posted. If a person did post a very small number
> of these, nobody would probably say anything, but you post a lot
> of messages, so you are going to be one of the first people I ask
> to keep your postings within the bounds of this list. I don't think
> that's unfair. So, please keep your postings on topic, especially if
> you are going to post so much.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:54 PM
> To: jim.s3@juno.com
> Cc: Stand Up Ontology
> Subject: SUO: Re: Inquiry Driven Ontology Development
>
> $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
>
> jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Does this posting have anything specific to do with the IFF
> > or SUMO documents, or is it general ontology discussion.
> > If the latter, could you post messages of this sort to
> > the Ontology list.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
>
> Jim,
>
> Are you literally telling me that we are not allowed
> to talk about anything but the IFF or SUMO documents
> on the main SUO List?
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:54:12 -0500
> > Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> > >
> > > Let us now return to John Dewey's "Rainy Day Inquiry"
> > > or "Sign of Rain" example, and this time put it under
> > > the microscope and look at a few of its finer details.
> > > In particular, I can use it to illustrate a couple of
> > > important issues:
>
> <etc.>
>
> $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤