Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
I think you're jumping to conclusions. SUMO is stable, but it is not
yet a standard. We're making progress on SUMO independent of the SUO
group, but I'd like to get specific input on the ontology (at the level of
discussion of particular axioms) and agreement on its standardization. We
haven't seen that, in part because this group has been taken up with
discussion of goals and procedures, rather than the actual work on a
standards document.
I'm suggesting the split, which could be temporary, in order to allow
the two major camps here to work on their standards documents without
interference from the other group. You're once again suggesting combined
work where the substance of that work is not clear, but rather a very basic
research task. Putting all the proposals on an equal footing is also not
sensible since the proponents of each may not see the value in the other.
Can't we agree at least temporarily to go forward with two separate
groups rather than spin our wheels for another 2.5 years discussing goals
which at clearly divergent?
Adam
At 03:46 AM 5/3/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I'm glad that you like the proposed three stages.
>For reference, I'm repeating them at the end
>of this note.
>
> > 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?
>
>The groups are already divided. We are now at
>stage 1. In an earlier note, you said that SUMO
>was quite stable and usable as is. Therefore,
>there is no need for a motion to do anything
>more with SUMO by itself.
>
>The same is true of OpenCyc. It is also quite
>stable, and nothing more needs to be done with
>it by itself. If the Cyc group as a whole
>wants to extend OpenCyc, they can do so by
>just contributing more of the Cyc knowledge base.
>
>And the same is true of IFF. As Robert has
>said, the theory is quite complete right now.
>
>The main task now is to demonstrate that SUMO
>and OpenCyc are both useful and complementary
>contributions toward an SUO standard and that
>tools and methodology based on IFF can be
>usefully applied to organize and relate
>both of them and any additional content
>anyone may contribute.
>
>Therefore, there is no point in a motion to
>divide anything. And if we all agree that
>it is a good idea for the SUO to work on stage 2
>in order to produce the results of stage 3, then
>lets formulate a motion to do so.
>
>John
>________________________________________________
>
>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).
>