Re: SUO: Motion for a joint SUO project
John Sowa,
1. This motion may be a great way 'how' to proceed. But please
understand it could never be used to lock out other ways 'how' to
proceed.
2. If this motion passes, has the group agreed to commence work on
OpenCyc and SUMO? Regardless of how or the direction they progress,
combined or independently? You should probably spell this out. Keep in
mind, if a document progresses in a directly against the will of the
majority, it can only succeed in the end by building enough consensus to
get through the final votes.
Jim Schoening
On Sat, 03 May 2003 10:35:43 -0400 "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
writes:
>
> After all the discussion with Adam, John D, and
> others, I have revised my draft motion in the
> statement at the end of this note.
>
> The new statement makes it clear that SUMO,
> OpenCyc, and IFF are all starting candidates
> on an equal footing. It emphasizes that the
> developers collaborate to determine how their
> work can complement the work of the others.
> But it doesn't say how much, if any, of the
> three starting projects and documents should
> end up in the final standard.
>
> Point #3 replaces the word "lattice" with the
> term "generalization hierarchy". I would assume
> that the infinite lattice and/or other related
> mathematical structures would be part of the
> theory underlying the methodology. But the
> library of modules would only be a finite subset.
> Every lattice of theories is a generalization
> hierarchy, but a finite excerpt from a lattice
> need not be a lattice.
>
> The methodology mentioned in Point #3 is far
> less than what is contained in the IFF document.
> It is what I would consider the barest minimum
> that should be extracted from IFF to support
> the development and use of the modules. I
> would leave it up to the development process
> to determine how much more of IFF should be
> incorporated in the methodology.
>
> Perhaps there could be two resulting documents:
> an IEEE Technical Report that presents the full
> IFF theory, and a much smaller specification
> in the standard of just those operators that
> are actually used in the methodology.
>
> I hereby move that the following question should
> be put to a vote of the SUO Working Group.
>
> John Sowa
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group commence work on a project to develop
> a standard based on three starting candidates,
> IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
>
> (1) The development process shall include a
> collaboration of members of all three groups
> and other SUO participants to determine how each
> of the three starting candidates can complement
> and support the contributions of the others.
>
> (2) The results shall include a library of modules
> derived from OpenCyc, SUMO, and/or other sources.
> Each module shall consist of closely related
> axioms and definitions for some aspect of a
> standard upper ontology.
>
> (3) The standard shall include the specification
> of a methodology for testing the modules for
> consistency, relating them to one another in
> a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> and combining two or more modules to derive a
> new module that is larger and more specialized
> than the modules from which it was derived.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!