Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Jean-Luc,
I agree with your comments, and I really like
your concise summary:
> IT IS PREPOSTEROUS TO START WITH A "SEMANTIC MESS"
> AND HOPE TO CLEAN IT AFTERWARD.
That is the primary justification for techology
such as IFF. I say "such as" because I agree with
Adam that the jury is still our on whether IFF
will actually reach the goals they set.
But the primary goal of IFF is to provide a
systematic framework for developing, mapping,
and merging ontologies in a way that preserves
consistency. Any SUO standard must satisfy
those requirements -- whether or not IFF happens
to become the system that enforces consistency.
That is why I believe that the SUMO, OpenCyc, and
IFF people must work together. The final results
may evolve far beyond where any of them are right
now, but all three of those projects will be
strengthened by the exercise of working together.
Adam has many reservations about IFF. And so do I.
But the best way to develop *both* SUMO and IFF
(as well as OpenCyc) is to test and compare each
of those projects against and with the others.
All of them will be better for it.
John