Re: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
Adam,
The charter of the SUO committee is to develop a standard for ontology
that is scientifically sound and computationally tractable. It should
include both form (e.g., something along the lines of IFF) and content
(e.g., something along the lines of SUMO, CYC, and other resources).
Since a majority of the SUO members voted for IFF, something similar
to what has been proposed for IFF would certainly be appropriate (and
if not, there should be enough people to change the SUO charter to make
it appropriate). And since a plurality of the SUO members voted for
SUMO, it should also be considered within the scope of the SUO. But
many people have also said that some appropriate integration of IFF,
SUMO, CYC, and other resources would also be appropriate.
AP> I do not find your questions embarrassing, sadly, I find them
> irrelevant. You are welcome to your views, but my opinion is that you
> are after a solution that is not in keeping with the charter of this
> group. In that regard, and because I believe you oppose (or at the
> very least do not contribute directly to) the stated goals of the
> effort, I do unfortunately consider you a spoiler. It need not be so,
> but that's the path you seem to have chosen.
What I have been proposing is a standard for ontology that includes
both form and content, and which integrates the best of what has been
developed for IFF, SUMO, CYC, and other efforts -- and do so within
a consistent overall framework. I believe those goals are within
the scope of the SUO charter. They may be opposed to the goals you
have stated for SUMO. But your personal goals for SUMO should not be
considered identical to the SUO charter.
And by the way, Pat Hayes and others who are experts in the field
of ontology and logic also disagree with the SUMO goals and current
directions. Pat is so disgusted with that direction that he no longer
listens to or contributes to the SUO discussion. I at least have some
slim hopes that the SUO group might be persuaded to adopt a more
realistic, practical, and theoretically sound approach.
I am just waiting for some resolution of the voting questions to see
whether the entire SUO group will make appropriate decisions about how
to integrate all the work that has been done so far.
John Sowa