Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
At 09:10 PM 5/2/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I agree that we need more data, and an excellent
>source is OpenCyc.
>
> > What did you think about my proposal to let the two
> > groups of interested parties make progress without
> > impediment from the other? Can we at least agree
> > not to block each other, and reconvene at a later
> > date when there may be more evidence for our
> > respective positions?
>
>There are three groups: SUMO, OpenCyc, and IFF.
Yes, but it seems to me that SUMO and Cyc are both proposing content
ontologies, as distinct from the ontology relation framework embodied in
IFF. So, we may be able to get by with a split into two rather than three.
>This recent round of discussion was prompted by
>the OpenCyc motion, followed by your motion,
>followed by my motion to combine all three
>into a single project.
>
>The phrase "without impediment" is too negative.
>I would much rather see something that says
>the three groups agree to "help" one another,
>not just to "avoid blocking" each other.
Well, that would be great, but I'd be satisfied with just being able to
make progress.
>Perhaps it would be better to have a motion that
>outlines a plan for getting from where we are to
>where we would like to be. Following is a
>first cut at a three-stage proposal:
>
> Stage one. Three independent projects: SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and IFF.
>
> Stage two. Stock taking, analysis, and testing:
>
> a) Study the commonalities and overlaps
> between SUMO and OpenCyc and the
> possible contribution of further
> content from other sources.
>
> b) Analysis of possible inconsistencies
> in the various modules that make up
> SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
>
> c) Development and testing of the IFF
> theory and methodology on the modules
> of SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
> Further refinement and clarification
> of IFF and how it can assist in the
> analysis, testing, and combination
> of modules from various sources,
> especially SUMO and IFF.
>
> Stage three. Results:
>
> a) A library of modules derived from SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and/or other sources;
>
> b) Organization of the library into a
> generalization hierarchy (lattice),
> certification of the consistency of each
> individual module, statements of known
> inconsistencies between modules, and
> a history of testing of each module.
>
> c) A methodology based on IFF and/or other
> theoretical and computational techniques
> that enables different modules to be
> ordered within the generalization hierarchy,
> combined with one another, tested for
> consistency of each possible combination,
> and accommodated to new modules derived
> from independently developed sources.
>
>This proposal allows changes in any or all of the
>three starting projects. It doesn't commit to
>a total adoption of everything from any one of them,
>and it assumes that each contribution from any one
>will have to survive the analysis and testing done
>in stage 2. It also allows contributions from other
>sources (including further work done by the same
>people who initiated the first three projects).
>
>John
>
>PS: I'll be leaving on a trip tomorrow and won't
>be back until the end of next week. I might have
>a chance to check my email between now and then,
>but I probably won't be able to say much on this
>or other topics that might come up.
This sounds reasonable. But I don't think we need to go to the trouble of
making a motion on it. It's enough for now for us to agree it's a good
idea. The only motion we need to make is to divide the groups for
now. Can we proceed with that?
Adam