Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
It occurs to me that there is a way out of our current conflict. The
SUO group approved IFF and believes that it is a worthwhile goal. A large
number of folks also voted that SUMO is a worthy goal. Why not let both
groups pursue their goals, and update the group's charter to reflect those
goals? Neither approach is proven. Each group could achieve a standard
and then let the marketplace decide whether each merits wide
adoption. Both would have that potential. We could change our current
charter to have a goal of creating a standard for expressing the
relationships between ontologies, and migrate the current goal creating a
single content ontology to a new group. Each group of interested parties
would then no longer interfere with the progress of the other.
Here's what I'd suggest for a new charter
This standard will specify a formal framework for expressing the
relationships among ontologies, and for performing conversions among
them. The standard will allow a lattice of theories to be constructed by
providing the mathematical framework for their expression. While the
construction of content-level theories addressing issues such as spatial
and temporal representations is not a primary goal, such theories may be
created to illustrate the power of the framework. The framework will
support the creation of reasoning systems that operate on the lattice by
providing the mathematical definitions for the language to which such
systems need conform.
Is this an accurate statement of your goals?
Robert, would this be a reasonable way to proceed with our respective
scientific goals?
Adam
At 10:44 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Nobody was criticizing the charter.
>
> > All we have to do is propose something that meets
> > the charter, not justify the charter itself at
> > this point.
>
>I was simply observing that you were requiring more
>proof and justification for IFF, which has already
>been approved as a candidate project, than you were
>requiring for SUMO. I believe that all three projects,
>IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc are worthy candidates. Since
>IFF has already been approved, no further justification
>should be necessary.
>
>Your next paragraph makes a good point:
>
> > You'd like SUMO to collaborate in some way with IFF.
> > That's fine. But even putting aside for the moment
> > whether I think that's a good idea, you've got to
> > provide some concrete example of what you want us to do.
> > I really have no idea concretely how to begin to do what
> > you ask. Could you do the first day of work on what
> > you'd like to see us do so we'd have a model to follow?
>
>That is a fair question.
>
>Tomorrow, I'll send a suggested outline of how developers
>from the three efforts could collaborate, but I would also
>like to ask Robert and the other IFF developers to comment
>on this point.
>
>John
>