SUO: AW: Common logic standard for KIF, CGs, and other notations
This is all very fine. How does it relates to the SUO? Is it because there
has been no procedural issue lately that you suggest we argue on those of
other groups?
BTW, I haven't seen a rant on SUOPenCycOrWhatever lately. I'm almost
concerned by the inactivity of this list.
kindly,
pierre
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]Im Auftrag von
> John F. Sowa
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. August 2002 15:36
> An: cg@cs.uah.edu; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org;
> kif@philebus.tamu.edu
> Betreff: SUO: Common logic standard for KIF, CGs, and other notations
>
>
>
> As we discussed in earlier notes, the projects for developing ANSI
> and ISO standards for KIF and CGs have been merged into a project
> for developing a common model-theoretic semantics for KIF, CGs,
> and other notations, including the traditional infix notation for
> predicate calculus. Members of the CL (Common Logic) project have
> have also been working with other groups to bring other logic-based
> or logic-like notations, such as RDF, under the same semantic umbrella.
>
> Users and developers of each notation will determine their own
> syntactic conventions, but any semantic features represented in any
> one of the notations could be mapped into the common semantics.
>
> Following is a note from Nancy Lawler, who attended the ISO meeting
> in Korea, where a NWI (new work item) was proposed to develop a
> CL standard, which would map to KIF, CGs, and other notations.
>
> The next ISO meeting will be held in January 2003 in Santa Fe,
> New Mexico. For that meeting, we hope to have well developed
> drafts of the CL standard with mappings to KIF, CGs, and infix
> predicate calculus.
>
> Meanwhile, I will be sending a series of notes to CG list to discuss
> various topics about the standards that were brought up at ICCS 2002
> in Bulgaria. Philippe Martin has already sent a note to CG list with
> some comments that he raised in the meeting, and I plan to continue
> that discussion in a series of notes to CG list. I hope that everyone
> who has been using and developing CG systems will participate in that
> disucussion to state their preferences, make suggestions, and help
> to evaluate various proposals.
>
> We would like to get firm decisions on a number of important issues
> before the end of 2002 so that we can have a definitive statement
> of the latest version for the January ISO meeting in Santa Fe.
>
> John Sowa
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Common Logic/ KIF/ CG standard: status of proposed NWI
> From: "Nancy Lawler" <nklawler@earthlink.net>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:25:04 -0400
> To: <kif@philebus.tamu.org>, <cg@cs.uah.edu>
> CC: <nklawle@super.org>, <sowa@bestweb.net>
> TO: KIF, CG and Common Logic participants
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I regret not making this year's Conceptual Structures conference, but
> I hope there will be some time during its last two days for people to
> discuss the fledgling ISO standardization effort for CGs, KIF and a
> common semantics for them and other representations of logic.
>
> Attached are two files. One is an rtf file "ISO WG2 Common Logic"
> derived from the powerpoint slides I used to support a case for adoption
> of a Common Logic/CG/KIF New Work Item at the ISO/IEC TC1 SC32 meeting
> in Seoul in April. The other is the current draft of the NWI Proposal,
> which I hope you will review. The NWI proposal is for a 3 part
> standard. The rationale for separating the parts is that the KIF and CG
> standards are more mature than the Common Logic part, and could proceed
> to Committee Draft status ahead of it.
>
> The proposal was considered by WG2 (metadata) of SC32, which has several
> members, interested in ontologies for business objects. The NWI for
> Common Logic had been considered at last year's Toronto meeting, but at
> that time there was no consensus in favor of its adoption. The WG 2
> chair pointed out that KIF and CGs have been brought up for ISO
> consideration off and on for at least 10 years with never enough help
> available for the editing. Other members had questions about
> proliferation, redundancy, and whether there is an industrial
> requirement for interoperability that warrants an ISO standard.
>
> If the Common Logic part of the standard comes together, however,
> this standard may be viewed as a way of managing proliferation of
> logic-related standards, rather than contributing to it.
>
> For WG 2 to propose a NWI, five countries need to agree to work actively
> on the standard. Over several days of the Seoul meetings, I engaged in
> formal and informal discussions of related technical, organizational and
> historical issues with the other WG 2 representatives. Mike Gruninger
> helped me to recruit interested people from England, Japan, and
> Australia, who contacted their WG2 representatives. Without some
> evidence that there are people within their countries who have a
> requirement for a standard, the members would not have supported the
> proposed NWI. The Japanese representative supported the proposal on the
> condition that it not be called "Common Logic" since that sounded like
> an attempt to standardize mathematics, which he would not support.
>
> At the end, there were no countries objecting, and I expect that at
> least the following will support it: US, Canada, Australia, Great
> Britain, Japan, Korea.
>
> Jean Berube of Canada and I agreed to be responsible for the standard
> within WG2. Jean is very experienced in standards work at the ISO level
> and took care of the Petri Net standard for that community. He also
> participates in SC7, which will be handling OCL.
>
> I anticipate continuity of funding for my participation in WG2 because
> of US government interest in its 11179 Metadata registry standard, so I
> expect to be able to help with this standard as well.
>
> Progress will require that the researchers, vendors and developers for
> Common Logic, KIF, CGs (and any other language to be brought in later)
> decide among themselves on what changes they want and convey those to
> the editors in WG2. None of these groups has a good process for doing
> this now, however, and not enough members of the Conceptual Graphs
> community have paid attention to the Common Logic effort.
>
> In the case of contentious issues, individuals can also independently
> lobby their country's representatives to SC32, who can comment on draft
> standards during balloting. WG2 would then be responsible for resolving
> ballot issues and meeting ISO requirements, such as technical quality,
> multilingual interfaces, and coordination with other ISO standards. The
> recently approved revision of Z, which now includes more detailed
> semantics, will create some coordination requirements.
>
> The committee did not propose a substitute name for "Common Logic", but
> agreed that it can be balloted with the name "NWI for CG and KIF
> (provisional title)". WG2-SED-024 is the number given the project
> document in WG. ISO will give it its own number. After considering any
> issues arising from this note, I'll coordinate with Mike Gruninger and
> John Sowa and give the finished NWI to the WG2 Chair, Larry Fitzwater.
> He stated that he needs the final NWI, and responses from 5 countries
> that they agree on the title and scope, before he'll give it to ISO.
> If all goes well, it would be possible to finish the 90 day balloting
> before the January meeting of SC32 in Santa Fe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nancy Lawler
>
> US Department of Defense
>
>