Re: SUO: charter and document structure
Richard,
If someone could show even a tiny subset of SUMO or Cyc as a compliant
IFF theory, and why that has value on any practical task, then this would
be an option worth considering. Absent that, I think the best way to
proceed is to let proponents of each approach proceed without being blocked
by others. No one has all the answers, so let's not prohibit each other
from making progress on a standard. This needn't mean that every
individual develops his own standard, but that after 2.5 years of such
divergent opinions maybe we should agree to an amicable separation into at
least two groups that allows progress.
Adam
At 08:52 AM 5/2/2003 -0500, richardm@tinwisle.com wrote:
>Adam, John, and all
>
>Suppose we structure the standard document as follows:
>
>Introduction - charter, etc.
>Normative references - if there are any suitable
>Definitions - not very many, just enough to set the stage properly
>IFF as normative text - the challenge is be to reduce the current work to
>essentials necessary for support of multiple ontology
>Conformance - the meaning of ontological compliance to IFF
>Annex A (normative)- SUMO as a compliant ontology
>Annex B (normative)- OpenCyc as a compliant ontology
>
>Each part, IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc stand distinct and can be pursued
>somewhat independently. The conformance section would be the glue that
>holds it together.
>
>Is something like this achievable? I'm not sure where the language issues
>fit in this scheme.
>
>Cheers,
>Richard