Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Jay,
Just one minor note of clarification
At 06:55 AM 5/1/2003 -0700, Jay Halcomb wrote:
[snip]
>JS again> The important point is that no ontology can ever be
> > a static, stand-alone artifact. The terminologies
> > used by Applied Sciences are overwhelmingly larger
> > than Cyc in terms of the number of concept types
> > (or word senses). Somehow, the SUO will have to
> > be related to such things, and the methods for
> > composing or relating ontologies must be part of
> > any practical methodology for using ontologies.
>
>I quite agree with John Sowa here. This will be a metalinguistic effort
>essential to SUO. The chimera of a static SUO is quite unattainable and
>unrealistic. Whether or not IFF is suitable (it isn't now that I can tell,
>for various reasons, including it's own terminological difficulties), or
>whether other alternatives may be useful, remains to be seen.
I don't think anyone is proposing that the SUO be static. SUMO is stable
at this point, but not entirely static. I would envision that we could
reach a standard, but that like many standards, it would need periodic, if
minor, revision.
Adam