SUO: Re: Good for SUMO, Good for OpenCyc, good for all of us?
A suggestion below.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 07:03
Subject: SUO: Good for SUMO, Good for OpenCyc, good for all of us?
>
> I agree with John that there seems to be no need to split
> the IEEE mandate into more than one "SUO". From all that
> has gone on before, I expect that for the foreseeable future
> there will be a SUMO developed primarily by Teknowledge and
> an OpenCyc developed primarily by Cycorp. These can continue
> as ontologies used by their creator organizations for their
> own purposes and also as candidate SUO's. John's motion
> as I interpret it suggests a third candidate for IEEE-SUO,
> which would be a merged ontology taken from SUMO, OpenCyc,
> and with other content suggested by contributors.
PC>The
> third ontology will have mappings to SUMO and OpenCyc and
> will present an opportunity to test the utility of the IFF
> theory for organizing multiple ontologies, and
> an opportunity for those who would prefer not to
> use either SUMO or OpenCyc to try to create something
> better than either (whether better for some specific
> purpose or better in being able to map more precisely
> to more ontologies).
Suggestion: Call this 3rd scheme the SUM -- Standard Universal
Meta-ontology.
>Suggestions for content for the
> merged ontology can be adopted or not into SUMO or
> OpenCyc as their creators see fit. If the members of
> Teknowledge and Cycorp find that additional effort to help
> create a merged ontology is too distracting from their
> immediate concerns, then the process will proceed more
> slowly but can still proceed. If this group will undertake
> to develop a merged ontology, I will certainly have
> suggestions for additions of content not now in either
> OpenCyc or SUMO.
>
> Pat
>
> ============================================
>
>
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> > Adam,
> >
> > I don't understand why you insist on splitting
> > the group. The content requires the methodology,
> > and the methodology requires the content.
> >
> > Now that we have two separate content groups
> > -- OpenCyc and SUMO -- it is even more imperative
> > that we address the methodology of how these
> > two ontologies can work together and with all the
> > other ontological resources (WordNet, EDR, MeSH,
> > UMLS, etc., etc., etc.) that any proposed
> > standard will have to accommodate.
> >
> > Both SUMO and OpenCyc have developed separately
> > for quite a long time, and they have made many
> > decisions that have to be resolved if they are
> > ever to be brought into a single framework.
> > And the sooner we address those issues, the
> > better it will be for everybody.
> >
> > If we can't get a consensus of the developers
> > in this small committee, then there is no hope
> > of convincing the rest of the world.
> .
> > John
>
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
>
>