Re: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
John,
If this is the intent, and you'll vote for the SUMO motion as well as
the combined motion, then I would be willing to support the combined motion
also, but only if you'll also endorse the SUMO motion. That way truly no
one will be blocked.
Adam
At 12:03 AM 5/13/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I believe that the joint motion (which I repeat
>below) provides exactly what you are asking for:
>the opportunity to develop SUMO further under
>the auspices of the IEEE SUO project.
>
>It also provides what John D. was asking for:
>the opportunity to develop OpenCyc further under
>the auspices of the IEEE SUO project. John
>acknowledged that point, and he offered to
>withdraw his motion for OpenCyc in favor of
>the joint motion.
>
>And it recognizes that there is already a project
>approved and working under the auspices of the
>SUO project that is addressing the problems
>of merging and mapping ontologies. Since that
>project is already approved, this motion raises
>SUMO and OpenCyc to the same status that IFF
>already enjoys.
>
>It doesn't block you or anybody else from doing
>anything that you want to do. Nor does it force
>you or anybody else to do anything you might not
>feel is appropriate.
>
>The purpose of the joint motion is to recognize
>that we don't have just one content project, but
>at least two (SUMO and OpenCyc) and possibly
>more that may be added to the mix. Furthermore,
>it also recognizes the need for a methodology
>for relating these projects to each other and
>to other resources, some of which are already
>available and others will become available.
>
> > Without even a simple example illustrating in
> > detail how IFF might be used on a practical
> > problem I don't see how you can advocate it
> > as a solution.
>
>Please note that the joint motion does not
>"advocate" IFF as a solution. What it advocates
>is a bare minimum, which is already supported
>by ontology projects, including some of those
>that you cited. Furthermore, it advocates that
>the IFF people work with both SUMO and OpenCyc
>to demonstrate what it can do. What goes into
>the final standard will be determined by what
>proves to be successful. If IFF doesn't do
>anything useful, then it won't go into the
>final result.
>
> > For my part though, I don't want to block
> > the progress of those who advocate IFF, so the
> > best way to do that is to have a separate effort.
> > I would hope that you would not stand in the
> > way of those who wish to work on SUMO as a proposed
> > standard.
>
>Nobody is blocking anybody. On the contrary,
>the joint motion simply recognizes that there are
>multiple projects, that they are not in competition
>with one another, and that they should help each
>other whenever possible. It does not force anyone
>to work with anybody else, but suggests that they
>recognize that they are working toward a common goal.
>
> > People here, like yourself, have a research agenda,
> > that is independent from the practical use of a standard.
>
>We all have multiple goals. Among other activities,
>I am one of the founders of VivoMind LLC, a company that
>is already getting paid to work on some very practical
>problems for which we are already using a variety of
>ontological resources, including WordNet. And we would
>like to make use of a merged version of SUMO, OpenCyc,
>and other resources supported by tools along the lines
>mentioned in the joint motion (which makes no commitment
>to using all or even part of IFF).
>
> > People are already using SUMO, so at least some people
> > (including some companies) are already convinced.
>
>That's great. Even more people are using Cyc. That is
>why it would be even greater if the two projects would
>work together.
>
>John
>________________________________________________________
>
>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.
>
>
>
>